scruples as to. means, which counsel too frequently exhibit in defense or preservation of their clients, is often occasion for popular resentment. The conduct of the defense of criminals in this country, and the extremes to which counsel deem thenselves justified in going to save their clients from the just judg ment of the laws, have much to do with the disgraceful condi tion in which we find our administration of law." This is indeed a severe arraignment of the men whose profession is to uphold the administraton of law and facilitate the working of justice. But, after all, the President has but voiced what most people know to be a fact, and the worst of it is, as he says, he sees no remedy except in the expulsion from the profession of those men who stoop to such practices. But such a remedy would be most difficult of application. The border linc between commendable zeal and pernicious activity is hard to define. LIABILITY OF HOTEL KEEPERS EMPLOYING INFANT BELL BOYS TO CONVEY LIQUOR TO GUESTS. The Supreme Court of West Virginia in State v. Nichols, 69 S. E. 304 rendered a decision in October, 1910, which will cause considerable inconvenience to the proprietors of hotels who also run a licensed saloon in connection therewith. In that case the bell boy, who was a minor (which is usually the case with bell boys in hotels) went to the bar an purchased liquor from the bartender without saying that he bought the liquor for any person except himself or telling the bar tender that he wanted it for a guest of the hotel. Nor did it appear that the bartender even inquired of him whether he was getting the whiskey for himself, or for another person to whom the saloon keeper had a right to sell. Upon these uncontroverted facts the court held the proprietor liable for the acts of the bartender, applying the rule that if a licensed saloon keeper, or his agent, deliver intoxicating liquor to a minor and receive from him the money therefor under the belief, however induced, that the minor is buying as agent for another, whose identity is unknown and is not disclosed, it constitutes a sale to the minor. Of course the rule of law is well settled by the decisions and ree. ognized by all the text writers on the subject, that where a sale of intoxicating liquor is made to a minor for an undisclosed principal, it is a sale to the minor. But the difficulty here is that it was expressly brought out in the evidence that the barkeeper was under the impression and belief that the bell boy was getting it for some guest of the hotel who was unknown to the bartender. The court added, however, "it does not fol. low that a lawful sale could be made to every guest. The guest might himself be an infant." It would certainly seem that in a transaction so common as this every presumption of innocence should attend the act of the saloon keeper, as he had every right to believe and did believe that this allered unlawful sale was being made to a person competent under the law to buy. If, as the court says, the guest turned out to be an infant, then o course his liability would be undoubted, for he acts at his peril. THE ONLY PRACTICAL. SOLUTION If we take but the briefest glance at the causes for divorce legalized in the different states, the hopelessness of reconciliation of beliefs is at once apparent. In South Carolina no cause for divorse is recognized. In New York, the only cause is adultery. Practically all of the States having divorce laws recognize adultery as a sufficient ground, but most statutes go further and recognize variously such other causes as inpotency, desertion, cruelty, intoxication, the failure of the husband to support the wife, conviction for crime, disappearance, incompatibility of temper, joining a religious sect that professes to believe the relation of husband and wife void and unlawful, and various marital offenses. Some States indeed have an omnibus clause attached to the divorce law permitting the courts to decree a dissolution when satisfied that husband and wife can no longer live together for any cause whatever. Now it may be well asked, when a convention representing each of the several states shall have come together to frame a divorce law, what likelihood is there of the delegates reaching an agreemnet as to what causes for divorce should be recognized? South Carolina could hardly hope to bring the other States into line with her policy of no divorce at all. On the other hand, would she agree to change her own policy? Would New York, with her lofty ideas of the sacredness of the marriage bond, consent to abandon them and meet on half way ground a State which allows divorce for any cause which to a court would seem sufficient? We cannot hope that any one of the States would agree to change its divorce policy in any but unimportant particulars. Consequently it is easy to fortell that a convention such as has been suggested will. if it meets all, do nothing but talk and adjourn. And so it would be if the matter were to come before Congress. That body, made of representatives from each state, might fill volumes of the Congressional Record with instructive and entertaining debates, but it would never, for lack of a majority vote, add to the national statute book a uniform divorce law. It seems to be beyond question that the only unanimity we can look for in divorce matters is a unanimity as to mere matters of procedure. It may be possible for all the States to agree as to what shall constitute a sufficient residence in the State to enable a plaintiff to sue, and what shall constitute sufficient service upon the defendent. Even this much, if accomplished, would be a dis. tinet gain, in view of the fact that full faith and credit must be given by one State to the divorce decrecs of its sister States provided such decrees have been regularly obtained according to the statutes of the home jurisdiction. A uniform law of procedure, therefore, would make easy of determination the legality of a divorce obtained in another jurisdiction. -Law Notes. Much Governed-"Why do you call up at this box, my man!" "To learn what new laws have been passed since I went on duty," answered the policeman. SAVE TEN CENTS A PAGE ON YOUR SUPREME COURT RECORDS We are thoroughly equipped for printing briefs and records and will promptly execute such work for FIFTY CENTS A PAGE The work is guaranteed first class in every particular. Ask the clerk of the Supreme Court to send your next record to us, notify us, and we will refund you the ten cents per page as soon as we receive the money. All brief work shipped CO D. A trial is all we ask. THE KNIGHT ERRANT COMPANY BUCKHANNON, W. VA. West Virginia Court of Appeals Decisions Handed Down at the Last Term REPORTED ESPECIALLY FOR THE BAR Appearing Here for the First Time in Print Absent: Judge Miller. L. DUDLEY et al, v. J. L. BUCKLEY et als. Wood County. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded. Williams, President. SYLLABUS. 1. A deed of conveyance absolute on its face, may be shown to be a mortgage. 2. A deed for land appearing to be absolute, and reciting a cash consideration of $4,500, but which was made to secure and indemnify the grantee as the accommodation endorser of notes made by the grantor, constitutes the grantee a mortgagee, and not a purchaser. 4. The grantor in such a conveyance is vested with the equity of redemption, and will not be permitted to dispose of it in fraud of the rights of his existing creditors. 4. If an insolvent husband make such a conveyance, and at the time of making it, or afterwards, agree with the grantee that, upon the payment of the notes to secure which the deed or mortgage, 13 given, the grantee shall convey the property to grantor's wife such an agreement is in fraud of the rights of existing creditors of the grantor; and if the grantor afterwards pay the notes, and the grantee, in pursuance of the agreement, convey the property to grantor's wife, it will be set aside at the suit of the husband's existing creditors. Such conveyance to the wife is without consideration, and amounts in law to a gift from her husnand. 5. The voluntary grantee of one who fraudulentlly acquired title, is in no better position than his grantor. 6. When a conveyance is attacked as fraudulent, and the fraudulent intent of the grantor is shown, it is incumbent on the grantes to prove that he is a purchaser for value; and if he fails to do so be he will be regarded as having been a party to the fraud.. 7. A man admitted to be engaged to the daughter, claims o be the purchaser of land from her mother, and very shortly after the allleged purchase marries the daughter and immediatly conveys the land to her. HELD: That for the purpose of ascertaining the good faith of the alleged purchase, he must be regarded as a son-in-law at the time of the alleged agreement, 8. Whenever a suretv is compelled to pay the debt of his principal he is entitled to be subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the creditor against his principal such rights are not limitted to the time of the payment, but are co-extensive with the debt, or obligation. 9. A board of education brought suit against a sheriff and his sureties on his official bond, and obtained a judgment for a balance found to be due it and in the sheriff's hands, and the surety paid the judgment. Between the ending of his term of office and the date of the judgment, the sheriff had fraudulently procured a transfer of his property to be made to his wife without consideration. HELD: That being subrogated to the rights and remedies of the board of education, the sureties are to be treated as existing creditors at the time of the fraudulent conveyance and can have it set aside, and the land subjected to the payment of the debt 10. Where a conveyance is attacked and set aside for fraud, an order of reference to ascertain liens and their priorities is not generally necessary Neither has the fraudulent grantee any right to demand a renting, instead of a sale, of the property. 11. There are no equities between fraudulent grantees who receive conveyances at different times which will warrant the application of the rule that the land should be subjected in the inverse order of its alienation. Lands in the hands of such alienees are equally liable for the grantor's debts. 12 Notwithstanding the rights of a co-defendant are clearly established by the proof taken on the pleadings between plaintiff and defendant, still no relief can be granted such co-defendant unless relief for him is included in the prayer of the plaintiff's bill or unless he has himself answered and prayed for relief. WILLIAMS & DAVISSON CO., et als. v. BAILEY, et alls. SYLLABUS. 1. Service of notice required by section 3 of chapter 75, Code 1906, to be given to the owner by one who has performed labor for. or who has furnished material to, the contractor is sufficient if made in the manner provided by section 1 of chapter 121, Code 1906. 2. A sheriff's return upon such notice, reciting the manner of service, is his official act, and must be regarded as at least prima facie true. 3. If the owner wishes to limit the amount for which his property may be made liable to a sum not to exceed the contract price agreed on by him and the contractor, he must have his contract recorded. 4. Failure to record his contract does not have the effect to constitute the contractor his agent to the extent of dispensing with notice to the owner. |