tiff was a passenger on the defendant's vestibuled train known as the Royal Blue Line, leaving Washington about noon on the 20th day of December, 1894, and arriving at Jersey City about 6 o'clock of the same evening. As the train was nearing the station at Jersey City the conductor or guard called out, All out, Jersey City, last stop." The plaintiff then got up and began to get ready to leave the train. He had been sitting a long time without standing. He straightened his limbs, smoothed his clothing, looked at his watch and then put on his overcoat, after which he picked up his umbrella and bag and started toward the door. The conductor or guard stood facing the door of the vestibule, which had not as yet been opened. The plaintiff then leaned against a partition and stood waiting for half a minute, during which time the train was still in motion, but moving smoothly and without any jar or jerks. The guard then opened the vestibule door and stepped across to the vestibule of the other car. At this the plaintiff, supposing the train had stopped, stepped out into the vestibule, took the rail with his right hand and passed down the steps and thence off on to the platform. As he did so he fell and both feet were crushed, one above the ankle and the other across the toes. It appears that he stepped from the train while it was in motion and was just entering the depot shed. He was unable to describe just the manner in which his feet were crushed, but it is supposed that they were run over by the wheels of the car. There was a light in the vestibule of the car and the plaintiff saw the steps, three in number, as he passed down from the vestibule, but did not see the ground. The guard was partially facing him as the plaintiff passed out of the car into the vestibule, but gave him no warning or intimation that the car had not stopped.

Upon these facts the trial court dismissed the complaint, and, we think, properly. In the case of Solomon v. Man R'y (103 N. Y. 437, 442), Andrews, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: "It is, we think, the general rule of law, established by the decisions in this and other States, as claimed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the boarding or alighting from a moving train is presumably and generally a negligent act per se, and that, in order to rebut this presumption and justify a recovery for an injury sustained in getting on or off a moving train, it must appear that the passenger was, by the act of the defendant, put to an election between alternative dangers, or that something was done or said, or that some direction was given to the passenger by those in charge of the train, or some situation created, which interfered to some extent with his free agency, and was calculated to divert his attention from the danger, and create a confidence that the attempt could be made in safety." Applying this rule to the facts under consideration it is evident that there is a total absence of any

act or direction of those having the charge of the train which interiered with the tree agency of the plaintiff, or that in any manner diverted his attention. All that was done by the guard was to cal out, All out, Jersey City, last stop." This notice was given before the train had stopped, and this fact was well understood by the plaintif. He knew it to be the usual notice given in advance of the arrival of the train at its stopping place, notuying the passengers that the train was nearing the station, in order that they might get ready to alight. He acted upon the notice leisurely, preparing himself to leave the train, gathering together his belongings, and then walked toward the front of the car, stopping and leaning against a partition for a time, waiting unquestionably for the train to arrive at and enter the station. No unusual situation was created. He was in no manner interiered with. As the car was entering the train house the guard stepped into the vestibule and opened the door. He then stepped into the vestibule in front as the plaintiff stepped out and descended the steps. There was nothing unusual in this. Nothing had been done or said that would lead the guard to suppose that the plaintiff did not understand the situation, or that he was mistaken about the train having come to a stand. Ordinarily passengers have no difficulty in determining whether a train has stopped. They are usually as sensitive to a moving car as any guard or conductor could be, and heretofore it has never been understood to be the duty of a railroad company to expressly warn its passengers of the starting or of the stopping of the train. This was not a rapid transit or elevated railroad, in which a different custom may prevail. If such a duty is now imposed upon railroad companies their burden will be materially increased, and they cannot properly open the door of a car for the exit of passengers until it has actually come to a stop. No case to which our attention has been called has gone to this extent. In the Filer case (49 N. Y. 47) the plaintiff, a woman, was directed by the brakeman to get off the car while it was in motion, telling her that the car would not stop at the station or move more slowly. She was thus put to an election between two alternatives, either to be carried on beyond her destination or else to take the chance of injury by alighting while the car was in motion; thus bringing the case within the exception to the rule given by Andrews, J., in the Solomon case. In the Bucher case (98 N. Y. 128) the train did not stop at the station for which the plaintiff had purchased his ticket and at which he had the right to get off. The train merely slowed up and did not furnish an opportunity to leave the cars in accordance with the plaintiff's contract. He was told by the conductor to step off or jump off. He obeyed and was injured. Here also was a situation presented in which the plaintiff was called upon to elect between alternatives as in the

Filer case, in addition to a command from the conductor by which he was given to understand that he could alight in safety. In the Lent case (120 N. Y. 467) the plaintiff had entered a car in which the seats were all occupied. She passed through to the rear platform and was informed by the conductor that another car would be put on. An empty car was backed down and came in contact with the platform of the car on which she was standing. The conductor cried out, "All aboard," but the drawheads of the two cars failed to catch, and in consequence the car receded several feet, and as the plaintiff attempted to pass forward into the vacant car she fell between the two and was injured. In this case the plaintiff was clearly misled by the statements of the conductor. She had been informed that an empty car was to be attached. It was backed down so that the platforms of the two cars came together. The conductor gave his notice, "All aboard," from which she was induced to believe that she could pass from the platform of the car on which she was standing to that in the rear in safety. In the Lewis case (145 N. Y. 508) the plaintiff desired to leave the car at a station at which the train did not stop. He was advised by the conductor that before reaching the station the train would slow up near a bridge to enable a freight train, approaching on another track, to pass. The conductor told him to get off there. He went to the rear of the car to alight and was thrown from the car by a jerk, causing him to fall upon another track on which the freight train was passing. Here also we find a situation presented very similar to the Filer and Bucher cases (see, also, Laughlin v. B. & S. W. R. R., 106 N. Y. 136; Hunter v. C. & S. B. R. R.. 126 N. Y. 18; Piper v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R., 156 N. Y. 224: Distler v. L. I. R. R., 151 N. Y. 424; and England v. B. & M. R. R., 153 Mass. 490).

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and judgment entered upon the nonsuit affirmed, with costs.

PARKER. Ch. J.; GRAY, O'BRIEN, LANDON, CULLEN and WERNER, J. J., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

STATUTORY REVISION OF NEW YORK.

THE New York Evening Post quotes Assembly

ber of the special committee of the legislature of New York appointed to examine and report on the work of the defunct Statutory Revision Commission, as saying:

"As I understand it, the committee is empowered to recommend the retention or abrogation of any or all of the commission's work, and to present, if it chooses, a complete substitute, and what we shall do of course we cannot tell until we shall have thoroughly considered the commission's results. That that body has performed an immense

amount of labor, that its intentions were good, and that there were able men upon it, cannot, I think, be denied. But it is equally undeniable that its product as a whole is generally unsatisfactory to the bar of the State, and that there is a strong demand for a drastic counter-revision.

"My own judgment is that we should do well to deal first with the commission's revised Code of Civil Procedure. This work contains about 3,500 sections, and, it is asserted, is substantally nothing more than a transposition of the old code. Whether that is true I am not prepared at this moment to say; but I am convinced that the code is susceptible of immense simplification, reducing the number of sections to about 1,000.

"The perfect feasibility of such a condensation has been shown in England and in some of our States.

"To repeat it in this State would be an enormous gain to courts, lawyers, clients and the public. Sixty-five per cent. of the cases adjudicated in this State by appellate courts go to them upon questions of procedure and practice. A large proportion of that percentage would be eliminated by a simplified code.

"The question of a simpler code is an intensely practical one, and especially so in this county. So crowded are our calendars that a cause cannot now reach the Supreme Court in less than two and a half years, and the congestion is increasing all the time. This is largely the consequence of our extensive and complicated code. Much of practice and procedure should be left to the courts themselves, as in England, instead of being embodied in statutes.

"It is likely that the task before the committee will be apportioned among its members, but we shall, of course, hold corporate meetings. which will be in the nature of hearings. We shall probably prepare a list of eminent lawyers in the State, whom we shall specially invite to appear and give us the benefit of their suggestions. At the same time I have no doubt that we shall willingly hear any representations which may be volunteered.

"I shall be heartily in favor of inviting the judgment of the Bar Association of the State on our own results before presenting them to the legislature. The lawyers are the judges in this case, and it would certainly appear unwise to submit to the legislature recommendations which they would not approve.

"The task committed to us is truly herculean. but I hope that we shall be able to complete it before the adjournment of the next session of the legislature."

Association has decided to hold the annual meeting at the Chicago Beach Hotel, on Thursday, July 12, 1900.

Prof. Roy Wilson White, instructor in the law department of the University of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia, was brutally murdered on the street on the 19th inst. by unknown assassins.

Dennis Clark, one of the oldest and leading citizens of Knox county, Illinois, and judge of the County Court for twenty-one years, died at Abingdon, Ill., May 16, 1900, aged eighty-three years. He settled in Knox county in 1833, and taught the first district school in that section.

According to a Louisiana court, the publication of a judicial notice on Sunday has no legal effect. Most of these notices have to do with sales of property. A judicial advertisement of this character is declared to be not only an invitation to purchasers and an inducement to competition for the goods or land to be sold, but also a notification | to all parties to the litigation to attend the sale and protect their interest. Such a citation, the court holds, can be served only on a business day. and may not be effectively published on Sunday. The New Orleans Picayune fears that this decision may disturb titles to real estate in Louisiana. National Advertiser.

the displeasure of the Hanchetts, and they showed their disapproval by posting bills around the town, threatening their employes with discharge should they continue to buy merchandise from him. The merchant resisted the boycott by filing suit in a Federal court, and obtaining an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Recovery for Libel. Martin J. McMahon obtained a verdict for $16,500, on the trial of his suit against the New York News Publishing Company, for damages for a libel. A motion made to set

aside the judgment was granted, unless the plaintiff stipulated in writing to reduce the verdict to $7,500. This he did, and judgment entered for that amount has now been affirmed by the First Appellate Division. On appeal it was claimed for defendant that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erred in charging the jury that it "might award punitive damages without evidence of any actual or express malice." Justice McLaughlin, giving the unanimous opinion of the Appellate Division, holds that what the court said was that if the jury believed the publication complained of was "made recklessly and maliciously and wantonly, in utter disregard of the rights of the plaintiff and others, in utter disregard of the truth," they might award as "a punishment to the defendant what is known in law as punitive or

deliver his annual address, and the annual address

of the association will be delivered by Judge

Lurton, of the United States Circuit Court. Other

the rule to be as laid down by the Court of Appeals (147 N. Y. 59), thus: "The publication of a libel is a wrongful act, presumably injurious to those persons to whom it relates, and in the absence of legal excuse, gives a right of recovery, ir

published it, and this, although he had reason to

believe the statement to be true, and was actuated

by an honest or even commendable motive in making the publication."

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of California has affirmed the illegality of the "boycott" in the case of C. J. and L. E. Hanchett v. John Chiotovich. The opinion was rendered by Judge Ross and concurred in by Judges Gilbert and Morrow. Judge Ross says: "It is in our judgment a clear violation of the right appertaining to every person engaged in an industrial enterprise for another person, through malice or revenge, to command or induce other persons to withdraw or withhold their custom from him. or otherwise maliciously interfere with his business." Chiotovich is a wholesale and retail merchant in the town of Silver Peak, Nevada. The Hanchetts employ about fifty men in the same town. For some reason not material to the issue, Chiotovich incurred

William W. Gibbs, who, in November, 1886, was the promoter of the reorganization of the Pennsylvania, Slatington and New England Railroad Company, of which he owned a majority of the stock and bonds, and which was under foreclosure. contracted in writing with John Weir, of London, to deliver to the latter, upon completion of the road, a certain amount of the bonds and stock of the reorganized road, in compensation for services agreed to be performed in connection with the reorganization. Then Weir and Gibbs made a like agreement with Robert O. Babbitt, who performed the services called for. The road was reorganized and completed, and Mr. Gibbs received the benefit of Mr. Babbitt's services. The latter subsequently sued Gibbs to recover the value of the company's first mortgage bonds and stock of the par value of $25.000 of bonds and $75.000 of stock. A judgment for the defendant on the report of a referee dismissing the complaint of the first trial was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

A dismissal of the complaint on the second trial has now been reversed by the Appellate Division of the First Department, in an opinion by Justice Rumsey. The court holds that Weir was not a necessary party to the action, and adds: "We can conceive of no reason why the plaintiff, who was entitled to receive this particular property, should not be permitted to pursue that property in the hands of the person who was required to pay it over to him, without joining any other person in the action for the bonds and stock which Gibbs alone has, and for which he alone is responsible."

A young lawyer moved into a Connecticut town where there was only one lawyer before an old judge. A close-fisted old farmer thought there was a good chance to get some legal advice from the young man, gratis, so he dropped into his office, told him how glad he was that he had come into town, because the old judge was getting superannuated, and contrived in the course of the talk to get the legal information he wanted, and then bidding him good morning was about to leave, when the young man asked for his fee. "What for?" said the old farmer. "For legal advice." replied the young lawyer. "How much is it?" "Five dollars." The farmer declared he would never pay it, and the young lawyer told him if he didn't he would sue him. So the farmer trotted down to see the old judge, whom he found hoeing in his garden, and said: "Judge, I went in this morning just simply to make a neighborly call on that young scamp of a lawyer who has just come into town, and he charged me five dollars." "Served you right," said the judge; "you had no business to go to him." "Well, have I got to pay it?" "Certainly you have." "Well, then, if I must, I must. Good morning." "Hold on," said the judge:" aren't you going to pay me?" Pay you, what for!" "Why, for legal advice, of "What do you charge?" "Ten dollars." The result of which was the old fellow had to pay five dollars to the young lawyer and ten dollars to the old one. Moral. - Don't try to get legal advice for nothing. - Geo. T. Angell, in Dumb Animals.

course.

New Books and New Editions.

The Law of Expert and Opinion Evidence Reduced to Rules. With Illustrations frem Adjudged Cases. By John D. Lawson, LL. D. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Chicago: T. H. Flood & Co., 1900.

in the revision of this excellent treatise, the first edition of which was published in 1883, the author has not only done a valuable service to the profession, but greatly enhanced his reputation as a careful and competent author. To refer to the merits of the original work at this late date would be wholly unnecessary it is too well known to require any introduction. The present edition is in all respects superior to its predecessor. It brings the law of the subject right down to date. That expert and opinion evidence is an every-day subject in the courts is shown by the great number of cases involving the admission of such testimony which have come before the courts since the publication of the first edition of this work. That edition cited 1,854 cases; the present one Over 3,000. A noteworthy feature of it, also, is the table of cases wherein the rules as given in the first edition have been approved or cited by the courts of last resort. As the author truly says in his preface, the value of this is that, "while the rule when first published was simply the opinion of the author, it has now the official and weighty indorsement of one or more of our appellate courts." The difference between the sort of work done in this edition and its predecessor, and that of the author who merely makes a digest of decisions and calls it a text-book, is too obvious to need calling attention to. The second edition contains 740 pages, and is mechanically as near perfection as any we have seen lately.

Rural Wealth and Welfare. Economic Principles Illustrated and Applied in Farm Life. By George T. Fairchild, LL. D. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1900.

The author dedicates this little book to the

thousands of students in agricultural colleges with whom he has studied economic questions during the past thirty-five years. His long experience in such institutions in Michigan, Kansas and elsewhere, together with his years of study and investigation of economic questions, have placed Prot. Fairchild in a position to throw needed light upon a subject which has been altogether too little exploited by students and scholars. Besides giving a condensed restatement of familiar fundamental principles, the author attempts to apply them for the benefit of farmers and their families, and makes many valuable suggestions which should be needed by those who believe that agriculture is the basis of the nation's prosperity. The aim of the author, in a word, appears to have been not to teach the farmer how to overturn nature (an impossibility in itself), but how to use it for all it is worth, in order to enhance his own and the general welfare; to show clearly the trend of facts and the universal principles sustained by them, and the means of most ready adjustment to circumstances in the evolutions of trade and manufacture.

Politics and Administration. A Study in Government. By Frank J. Goodnow, A. M., LL. D., Professor of Administrative Law. in Columbia University. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1900.

Prof. Goodnow is well known as one of the leading thinkers and writers of the country upon the subject of political science. In the present volume he has added to his reputation very materially, for it is in our opinion one of the most important contributions to the study of government and the possibilities of its adaptation to changed and changing conditions that has been made in recent years. The author attempts to show that the formal governmental system as set forth in the law is not always the same as the actual system, and he also seeks to indicate what changes in the formal system of the United States must be made in order to make the actual system conform more closely than it does at present to the political ideas upon which the formal system was founded. The concrete remedies he proposes are, first, a greater centralization of our State administrative system, following the model of the national administrative system, in the hope of taking from the mass of administrative authorities the power which they now have of obstructing the execution of State laws, and thus making it possible to relieve such administrative authorities from political tests for holding office; and second, the subjection of the political party, as a political organ recognized by law, to an effective public control, in the hope of making the party and its leaders more responsive to the public will. The work shows much learning and research, and while it cannot be expected to convince all of its correctness of its conclusions, undoubtedly the resulting thought and discussion will aid materially in bringing out the truth on the anvil of discussion. What the author says of the political boss, viz.. that all attempts to make him responsible must take account of the fact that the political storm center of the United States is not in the government. but in the party, and that when the party has been made directly responsible the people the boss will have been attacked in his stronghold and will be forced to capitulate, is particularly worthy of consideration by all students of popular government. Prof. Goodnow urges all to follow the example of England not so much in attempting an exact imitation of what she has done in this line as in adopting her frame of mind. and in evincing the same willingness which she has shown to adapt her governmental system to changed conditions.

to

The Organization and Management of a Business Corporation, with Special Reference to the Laws of New York. Delaware. New Jersey and West Virginia. By Thomas Conyngton

of the New York Bar. Published by the Ronald Press, 52 Broadway, New York, 1900. The purpose of this work, as stated by the author in his preface, is to set forth the methods, the advantages and the defects of the corporation; to contrast them with the similar features of the ordinary partnership; to show the ready adaptability of its methods for the smaller business enterprises; to clearly outline its preliminary procedure, and finally to show how its advantages may best be utilized and its dangers avoided. After presenting a systematic outline of the essential features of the modern business corporation, the author gives an abstract of the corporation laws of those particular States of the East where corporations are most commonly and most advantageously formed. The details of formation as to cost and procedure are gone into fully, and a special chapter is devoted to the dangers of the corporation and the protection of minority interests. This is followed by a comparison of corporation methods and results with those of the ordinary partnership. The author positively disclaims any intention of attempting to do away with the attorney in any phase of his work, the book being intended as a handy reference for the lawyer and a manual of information for the non-professional For the purposes named it seems admirably

man.

adapted.

Ames on Forgery, Its Detection, and Illustration, with Numerous Causes Celebres. By Daniel T. Ames. San Francisco: Daniel T. Ames, 24 Post street. New York: Ames-Rollinson Co., 1900.

This book of three hundred pages embodies the author's experience of some thirty years in the study and investigation of questioned handwriting, involving the examination of more than 2,000 cases, in over 1,200 of which testimony has been given in the various courts of the United States and Canada. Upwards of forty of the most noted cases not only of this country, but of the world, are presented, with engravings illustrative of the methods employed in the detection of forgery and its demonstration before the courts, to do which over seventy pages of engravings are required. Mr. Ames has long occupied a position as one of the leading handwriting experts of the world, who for more than a score of years was editor of the Penman's Art Journal, and has given two score of years to the study of handwriting. It will thus be seen that he had a wealth of material at his disposal. This he has admirably condensed into a practical, interesting and valuable treatise, indispensable to the banker and the attorney. Besides these, there are many who will be able to enjoy and profit by the information contained in

this work.