THE TRIAL OF CHRIST

By Hon. Sain Kei Sun Kee, A. M. LL. D., one time Professor of Law and Ancient History, Pekin, China.

The Trial of Christ is the most interesting case in all civil and ecclesiastical procedure. The Man of Galilee, "The King of the Jews,” the Jesus of the Gentiles, the Messiah, tried, sentenced, executed.

So it appears, looking at the case on the surface of the records; but when the case is carefully examined, it is conclusive that not He, but the judges and officers of the court, yea, mankind was on trial.

There never was a case like it in the past, will never be in all the future. If we crowd court rooms to hear the sensational trials of our day, we shall be derelict, indeed, if we fail to know the most extraordinary case of all the ages past, or to come. Whatever our belief, or unbelief, a desire to know this case is to have interest in the world's greatest tragedy, and to ignore it betrays a want of common human instinct, to say nothing of intelligence.

Before reviewing the case, let me state that Jewish and Christian scholars generally agree, and it is generally conceded, that the New Testament records of the case are true, and correct. Although the haggling over minor details will never cease until the case is reviewed before the Supreme Judge of the universe, yet the main issues, and the formal procedure, are so fully and authentically recorded, there is little difficulty in reaching honest conclusions.

In the case before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was tried by the Jews, and by the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law is of divine origin, the Ten Commandments being eternal. Before God wrote them with divine hand in the tables of stone, the Commandments were among the eternal verities. They have entered into the codes of the world, and permeate the judicature of all civilized nations.

In the trial before Pilate, Jesus was tried by a Gentile court, and by the Roman law. The Bible records tell us of laws, courts, priests, elders, scribes, witnesses, prosecutors, judges, and Jesus the defendant, or person on trial.

Through the Via Dolorosa of the centuries, the Jew has borne the cross of the Gentile, while the Gentile has branded him with the mark of Cain. "The Christ killer!" has been shouted at the Hebrew by succeeding generations, until the truth has been lost in the taunt, and the popular error has become the universal belief. The Gentiles compelled Simon the Cyreman to carry the cross they made for another, and with the same disregard of justice, the Gentile has forced the Jew to carry

this cross of infamy that belongs to another, and that other the Gentile himself.

Who killed Christ? Who crucified Jesus?

The Gentiles. The New Testament records conclusively prove it, and secular history confirms it. Let justice be done to the Jew.

The Brotherhood of Man, and Fatherhood of God, so much believed today, leave no place for injustice. I am a Christian so far as the name means loyalty to truth, justice to all men, even the Jew. A man willing to do the right, and right the wrong, though the Gentile lose and the Jew gain.

I humbly submit that the Gentiles were first to lay hands on the sacred person of Christ, in the holy hour of His passion in Gethsemane. That the kiss of betrayal was the preconcerted signal necessary to the Gentile alone. That the captors led by Judas on the night of betrayal were Gentiles. It was to Gentiles the traitor said, "Whosoever I shall kiss that same is he; hold him fast." That these Gentiles received the sign, there seized and cruelly bound with Gentile chains the Savior of the world.

That Gentiles led Christ to inquisition; Gentiles held Him when smitten with the first blow; Gentiles mocked and maltreated Him in the court of Caiaphas; Gentiles took Him to trial before a Gentile judge, Pilate the odious, yet canonized by Gentiles as a saint! A Gentile judge acquitted, but instead of discharging the innocent One, sent Him bound to Herod Herod, the enemy of Jesus.

'Herod's Gentile men of war reviled Jesus, arrayed Him in a robe of derision, then led Him, worn and weary, back to the Gentile judge again.

Pilate, the Gentile judge, reviewed the case he had once tried, and again acquitted the Christ; but instead of discharging Him as innocent, scourged Him contrary to law (because acquitted) to extort confession. This Gentile judge after horribly scourging the Savior, brought Him forth bleeding, and thorn crowned, as proof that the knout of the Gentile law had reached the limit of Gentile torture; but no guilt was found, although mercilessly sought.

This Gentile judge, in violation of his known duty, and contrary to law, sentenced One found innocent after being thrice tried, and thrice acquitted. This Gentile judge delivered the Savior to his Gentile soldiers, and the mocking, spitting on, and all the disgraceful procedure in the Common Hall, was done by Gentiles; not a Jew dishonored his race with a single act of it.

This Gentile judge dragged Christ to execution with two thieves, crucified Him to make the death ignominious, gratify his hatred of the Jews, and satisfy the Gentile desire for revenge.

(To Be Continued.)

Important Title Decisions.

BROKERS.-(Mo.) When no time is specified for the continuance for obtaining a prospective purchaser, the broker should show that the purchaser was ready, able, and willing to buy. Harris v. Millikan, 208 S. W. 633.

BROKERS.-(Mo. App.) In an action by a broker for compensation of a broker's agency to sell real estate, either party may terminate it at will, subject only to the ordinary requirement of good faith.-Saunders v. Hackley & Hume Co., 208 S. W. 67.

BROKERS.-(Utah) Where agent for sale of farm employed another firm as agent, which firm sold it at an advance over minimum price demanded and pocketed the difference, the land-owner was entitled to such secret profits.-Burt & Carlquist Co. v. Marks, 177 P. 224.

BROKERS.-(Miss.) The provision of the statute of frauds with reference to oral agreements for the sale of interests in land does not affect an agent's right to compensation for selling land pursuant to oral instructions. Cook v. Smith, 80 So. 777.

BROKERS.-(Ind. App.) A contract to pay broker commission for procuring purchaser of land, to be enforceable, must be wholly in writing, under Burns' Ann. St. 1914, § 7463, a contract partly in writing and partly in parol being insufficient.-Peters v. Martin, 122 N. E. 16.

BROKERS.—(Ala.) Broker's employment to find purchaser for his principal's property does not, in absence of stipulation, render principal liable for commissions to broker in case of sale by principal to any customer not procured by broker provided principal's sale was consummated before performance by broker.-Morris v. Clark, 80 So. 406.

BROKERS.—(Kan.) Where a real estate broker found a customer ready, able, and willing to buy land on the owner's terms, and where defendant's letter, advising broker that the land probably had been sold, did not reach broker until after such purchaser had been found, the broker had earned commission.-Edwards v. Dana, 178 P. 407.

ATTORNEY'S MEMORANDA PRIVATE.—(N, Y.) An attorney who has been employed merely to search a title, cannot be compelled to turn over to his client the data which he obtained in connection with the search, it being admitted that he has no papers belonging to the client and no claim being made that he agreed to give the client an abstract of title. In re Geba [Sup. Ct.], 60 L. J. 95.

EXPECTANCY-SUBJECT OF EXECUTION.(N. Y.) Realty was conveyed to a trustee who, upon the death of the grantor, was to convey to the heirs of the grantor. The trustee was empowered, if he so desired, to reconvey to the grantor at any time, and terminate the trust. While the grantor was alive, his daughter conveyed her interest under this trust to her husband. The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the husband, sought to subject the interest to their lien. Held, that the interest of the husband was a mere expectancy and not subject to execution. Doctor v. Hughes (1919, N. Y.) 122 N. E. 221,

ESTOPPEL BY MISREPRESENTATION.-(Minn.) The defendant permitted the record title to certain land to stand in the name of another. This other was to the defendant's knowledge engaged in a business which required the incurring of debts. The persons who were so extending credit relied upon the record and also upon the statement of the holder of the record title that he owned the property in question. The holder of the record title when faced with bankruptcy proceedings conveyed the property to the defendant. The trustee in bankruptcy brought the present action to recover it for the benefit of the creditors.

Held, that he was entitled to the relief asked. Bergin v. Blackwood (1919, Minn.) 170 N. W. 507.

EQUITABLE EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES (N. Y.)—-In developing a tract of land for the sale of building lots, the owner installed a sewerage system according to a plan, the system being operated by a pumping plant on the owner's land. By an agreement with the village the owner agreed to run the plant as long as the system should be in use. After a number of lots had been sold, the defendane bought the tract to sell lots, but discontinued operating the plant, which resulted in an overflow of sewerage dangerous to public health. In an action by the village to determine who was to bear the expense of operation, held, that the defendant must bear it. Village of Larchmont v. Larchmont Park, 173 N. Y. Supp. 312.

"SQUATTERS" RIGHTS RECOGNIZED.— (U. (S.)-Squatters' Rights" on the public domain are frequently given judicial recognition. This is as true of mineral lands as of other kinds. To initiate title under the mineral land laws as against the United States, an actual discovery of mineral is necessary; but where a prospector has staked out a claim, has actual pedis possessio, and is diligently exploring the ground, he has rights as against a forcible, fraudulent, or clandestine intrusion. This is fully recognized in the case of Union Oil Co. v. Smith (March 31, 1919) U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1918, No. 8; but it is held that in the absence of a discovery an oil claim is open to relocation by others if the first locator is not in actual physical possession.

NEGLIGENCE IN EXAMINING TITLE.-In Jacobsen v. Peterson, 103 Atl. 983, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an attorney, who is employed to investigate the title to real estate, is liable for any injury that may result to his client from negligence in the performance of his duties.

The court said: "It is the duty of an attorney, who is employed to investigate the title to real estate, to make a painstaking examination of the record, and to report all facts relating to the title. He is therefore liable for any injury that may result to his client from negligence in the performance of his duties; that is, from a failure to exercise ordinary care and skill in discovering in the records and reporting all the deeds, mortgages, judgments, etc., that affect the title in respect to which he is employed. Economy B. & L. Ass'n v. West Jersey Title Co., 64 N. J. Law, 27, 44 Atl. 854. In the present case it appeared, and the trial judge properly found, that the defendant negligently overlooked and failed to report a judgment for $380 which was a lien upon the land, the title of which he was employed to examine, and which the plaintiff purchased in reliance upon the defendant's report and without knowledge of the existence of such judgment. There was, therefore, no question as to the defendant's liability.

"The question arises, What was the measure of damages? Where, as here, an attorney negligently omits to report the fact of a judgment, which is a lien upon real estate the title of which he was employed to investigate, and his client purchases such real estate in reliance upon such report and without knowledge of such judgment, the measure of damages is the amount his client is caused to pay out to remove the lien of such judgment. But it appeared that the plaintiff subsequently sold the real estate for a sum in excess of its total cost to him, including the discharge of the judgment, and the trial judge considered that this justified the award of nominal damages only. Not so. The measure of damages was not affected by the sale. It will not do to say that in order for a client to recover for such negligence he must either sell the property at a loss or not sell it at all. he would have made the transaction sented."

He was entitled to all the profit if the title had been as repre

BOOK REVIEWS

BARNES' FEDERAL CODE. When Prof. Uriah Barnes undertook to compile a Federal Code to contain all the Statutes of general and public nature in force January 1, 1919, his was a gigantic task. He had as his associates Henry Craig Jones, Dean of the College of Law, West Virginia University, and Judge Ira E. Robinson, formerly of the Court of Appeals of that state. They have builded a logical and careful classification of the laws according to subject matter. The work is invaluable and comprehensive. Each one of the 2831 pages indicates the effort and care taken to bestow upon this work accuracy, clarity and completeness.

Typographically the book is one of the best we have ever seen; its mechanical details are perfect.

The legal profession have in this book a convenient and readily accessible book of laws. Barnes Federal Code will meet and supply a real and urgent demand for a full manual of the Federal laws in a handy and attractive well-bound single volume.

The work is all that can be desired by either the lawyer or the layman. No attorney with any practice can afford to be without it. Price $12.00, Morocco bound, thin Bible paper edition. For sale by Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis, Indiana.

HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.-A Concise Statement of the Rules in Civil and Criminal Trials, Based upon the Modern Law of Evidence, 5 Volumes. By Charles Frederic Chamberlayne, Editor American Edition of Best Principles of the Law of Evidence, American Edition of Taylor on Evidence. Edited by Arthur W. Blackmore, of the Boston Bar, and DeWitt C. Moore, Matthew Bender & Company, Albany, N. Y. Price $12.00.

To those who are fortunate enough to own Chamberlayne's splendid and large work on "The Modern Law of Evidence" this volume will need no commendation. It puts before the busy lawyer carefully digested, the substance of that monumental work in such shape that all the topics are condensed and succinctly stated and the lawyer in need of quick service can find the "meat of the law" ready for immediate use. It is a book to be carried in the court room, to lie upon the judge's desk, and to be used when no time can be allowed for the consultation of the larger work. It is eminently practical, both in selection and statement and, going back to the first principles it at the same time refers to sufficient authority and contains many practical suggestions as to questions— something decidedly novel in such works. It refers to the larger work of Mr. Chamberlayne in such a way that one who desires to make a more thorough examination of any question may readily do so and find this smaller work a valuable index to the larger.