« PreviousContinue »
ill with an infectious disease after the rooms were leased. (Sarson v. Roberts [Eng. 1895], 2 Q. B 395, 14 R. 616.)
From these authorities we may deduce the rule that a landlord who leases a house or apartments which he or his agent having charge thereof knows to be infected with a contagious disease, or otherwise in such a condition as to make their occupation dangerous to the health or life of the occupant, is liable for resulting damages; and if the tenant or any members of his family, without his or their fault, becomes sick or die by contracting a disease in consequence of his dwelling being infected when he rented it, the landlord is liable in an action based on such sickness or death. But that he is not bound to give notice of any subsequent sickness in the house or neighborhood which might make the tenant wish to vacate the leased premises. Indiana Law Journal.
HOME OF THE FIRST U. S. CHIEF JUSTICE.
OLD RESIDENCE OF JOHN MARSHALL IN RICH-
and of the splendid career of Marshall in the great office which he adorned for more than thirty-four years cannot fail to be an occasion of profound interest and importance to the American bench and bar.
"Soldier, student, advocate, diplomatist, statesman and jurist - he was one of the finest types of American manhood in its best estates. His fame is the heritage of the nation, and it is befitting that the whole country should celebrate the appointed day.
In view of this forthcoming celebration it is interesting to note that the general assembly of Virginia has chartered the John Marshall Memorial Association, organized for the purpose of purchasing his famous old residence at Ninth and Marshall streets, in order to preserve it as a permanent memorial.
In the language of Judge Story, when voicing the sentiments of the great court on the official announcement of Marshall's death: His genius, his learning and his virtues have conferred an imperishable glory on his country, whose liberties he fought to secure and whose institutions he labored to perpetuate. He was a patriot and a statesman of spotless integrity and consummate wisdom. The science of jurisprudence will forever acknowledge him as one of its greatest benefactors. The Constitution of the United States owes as much to him as to any single mind for the foundations on which it rests and the expositions by which it is to be maintained; but above all, he was the ornament of human nature itself, in the beautiful illustrations which his life constantly presented of its most attractive graces and most ele
REPARATIONS are already under way for the celebration of the centennial of the inauguration of Chief Justice Marshall, first chiefvated attributes.'"
justice of the United States, which is to take place in his old home at Richmond early in 1901.
Besides the exercises which will be held at the Marshall homestead, it has been proposed that commemoration services be held at the national
capital under the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States with the aid and support of the co-ordinate branches of the government.
It is also expected that the day will be properly observed in all American colleges, law schools and public schools in order that the student may become more fully acquainted with the noble life and distinguished services of Chief Justice Marshall.
The association will endeavor to keep the house as nearly as can be in its original form, and such furniture, books, manuscripts, portraits and other relics as were possessed by him or connected with him career will, as far as possible, be collected and used to furnish and decorate the old home. The association includes such eminent men Chief Justice Fuller, ex-President Harrison, Lyman D. Brewster, George F. Hoar and many other noted statesmen and lawyers.
The following address of the American Association of the Bench and Bar of the United States regarding the observance of John Marshall day was recently delivered:
"By direction of the American Bar Association, a committee composed of one member from each State and Territory and from the District of Columbia has been appointed by the association in reference to the proposed celebration of John Marshall day, to take place on Monday, February
Fortunately, the march of time and the everchanging touch of progress has not harmed the Marshall house. The exterior has never been remodeled. The place remains exactly as it was
4, 1901, being the first centennial of the installa-built for its first owner. The famous garden, however, in which Marshall used to indulge in his famous game of quoits, has disappeared.
tion of that eminent jurist as chief justice of the United States. A commemoration of this event
The Marshall house is now owned and occupied by two granddaughters of John Marshall, Misses Emily and Anne F. Harvie. It was built about 1795, while Marshall was Minister to France. Without any architectural pretensions this Colonial house is large and commodious. It is built of brick, and is two stories high, with the solid walls and the steep sloping roof so dear to the heart of the last century architect. The rooms, opening on each side of the beautiful hallway, are lofty and spacious, with walls paneled to the ceiling. In nearly every room is built an old-time fireplace, and the entire woodwork is beautiful and substantial.
It was sold many years ago, and is now built up with a long row of modern dingy brick buildings, but, despite this fact, the Marshall house has lost none of its nobility; it stands apart, rich in historic memories with an impressiveness and a grandeur all its own
The Chief Justice was a great admirer of the ladies, whose society he very much enjoyed. He always warmly defended their equality in native intellect with the sterner sex. He was remarkable also for his fondness for children and young men, and he always took an active interest in their sports and exercises, thus winning their love as well as their respect.
Although his great modesty and the natural reserve of his manners in society might be supposed to render him somewhat morose, Judge Marshall was of an extremely cheerful, even hilarious, disposition and greatly enjoyed the society of persons congenial to him. He was a member of the Barbecue or Quoit Club, of Richmond, for more than forty years, and always participated in the exercises and recreations that took place at their meetings, with great zest.
The judge was extremely unostentatious. He was an early riser and was frequently seen returning from market at sunrise with poultry in one hand and a basket of vegetables in the other. He also had a keen sense of humor. It is related that while at the market on one occasion a young man who had recently moved to Richmond was fretting and swearing violently because he could find no one to take his turkey home. Marshall stepped up and offered to deliver the fowl at the young
Arriving at the house the young man inquired, "What shall I pay you?"
"Oh, nothing," was the reply; "it was on my way, and no trouble."
As Marshall walked away the other inquired of a by-stander, "Who was that polite old man that brought my turkey home for me?"
'That," was the reply, "is Judge Marshall, chief justice of the United States."
In military service, at the bar, in Congress, in his political life, the judge was ever the same noble, honest, just, upright character, respected alike by both friend and foe. As a judge he had no rival, his knowledge being profound, his judgment clear and just and his quickness in apprehending either the fallacy or truth of an argument surprising. He possessed an extraordinary union of modesty and power, gentleness and force. What he knew he communicated without reserve, and he spoke with a clearness of expression and in a tone of simple truth which carried conviction with it.
The Chief Justice died in Philadelphia, where he had gone for treatment, July 6, 1835. His intellect was unclouded to the last moment, and a few days before his death, with characteristic modesty, he
wrote the simple inscription for his tomb, which bears but name and dates.
He is buried in Shockoe Hill Cemetery, of Richmond, under a square granite tomb on which is the simple inscription written by himself. — N. Y. Mail and Express.
PRISONERS OF WAR.
HE position occupied by prisoners of war is surely one of those subjects within the scope of what is termed the law of nations which will be of interest to many a lonely hearth, both in this country and in the far-away regions of Southern Africa. If, indeed, the public now read with avidity, as we are assured they do, all expositions of international law concerning the general rights and duties of belligerents and neutrals, much more are they likely to take an interest in that section of the law which deals with the treatment to be accorded to the prisoners of war. Probably in no other direction can the benignant influence of Christianity upon human conceptions be so clearly discerned, for the changes wrought by that influence, though of comparatively recent development, can be traced back step by step, though relapses for a time into utter animalism are visible during its progress.
For an illustration of the policy enjoined in the Mosaic period, it will suffice to recall the injunctions contained in Deuteronomy as to the utter extirpation of the "Seven Nations." Kings and people, male and female, adult and infant, were butchered relentlessly. The same fury can be seen in Roman and Greek times, though gradually it was mitigated by being reserved for those who withstood the storming of towns, the more common form of treatment being slavery. Even in these times, occasional references are to be found to exchanges of prisoners and their ransome at fixed rates of payment. In the seventh and eighth centuries the Goths and Vandals earned for themselves everlasting execration for their savagery, but superstition worked in favor of the victims of war who found safety at the shrines of saints. To an almost equal extent Mohamedanism had softened the asperities of a victorious general. To such a pitch of civilization had the Saracens invading Syria arrived, that they were instructed to spare defenseless persons, to avoid pillage, arson, and all wanton destruction. Gradual improvement became visible during the period subsequent to the Reformation, and it has increased with the general increase of civilization. The old sentiments still, however, reveal themselves in milder form, and can be justified to some degree on grounds of expediency, such as persuaded Buonaparte to execute an Eastern garrison, and such as, reflecting the dim outline of ancient slavery, compelled us to send the same Buonaparte to the re
mote island of St. Helena, and in recent times induced us to deal once and for all with Osman Digna.
The modern doctrines in regard to the treatment to be meted out to prisoners of war are such as are calculated to cripple the enemy to the greatest possible extent without inflicting unnecessary discomfort upon individuals. In the first place, almost every person serving in the belligerents' forces may be made a prisoner of war. Not only | combatants but non-combatants may be thus kept under restraint. Police, guides, messengers, and telegraphists may one and all become prisoners; but, on the other hand, it is doubtful if newspaper correspondents can rightly be thus treated, though probably there are few commanders of forces in the field who would not welcome their capture. The practice in regard to chaplains and surgeons seems to have varied from time to time, but the spirit of the Convention of Geneva, which is probably morally binding at the present day, contemplates the neutralization of the doctor, and more effective protection for those whom he is tending.
The doctrines of international law debar a belligerent from subjecting his prisoners of war to any confinement beyond what is reasonably requisite in effecting his object of depriving his enemy of a certain portion of his assets. Thus, it is not permissible to put such persons into jails unless such treatment be necessary in view of efforts to
escape; such efforts lay prisoners open to being IT
shot whilst in flight, though on capture they may only be subjected to stricter confinement. The practice in regard to their subsistence has also varied. At one time each State paid its adversary for the expenses of feeding its subjects who had become prisoners, but nowadays it is usual for each belligerent to provide all necessaries for the prisoners brought into its territories. Sometimes an allowance in money is provided either in lieu of or supplemental to other provisions. Prisoners are sometimes permitted to take up work of some kind for reward. The obligation to feed, clothe, and care for prisoners is probably one of the main reasons which have called into being the release of captured persons on parole. Whilst it is not permissible to force the obligations of parole on a prisoner, it is generally a course of expediency, especially when a siege is anticipated, to dismiss a large number of captives on terms which debar them from participating in the active conduct of the particular hostilities then in progress. The discharge of prisoners can be also effected by exchanges such as have already been made - if newspaper reports are correct - in the present war. Ransoming is but a survival of the ancient practice of enslaving prisoners, for it presupposes that their victor possesses in their persons something of pecuniary value. That the discharge of prisoners follows the termination of the war is of
course a natural assumption, and presumably the release of some especially obnoxious or dangerous individual may be subjected to some special condition.
One or two points of a totally different category may be just touched upon in conclusion; it is possible that some difficulty may arise at any time in regard to them. Prisoners of war retain their original domicil so long as they are prisoners, but, upon electing to remain after the coercion has ceased to exist, they may acquire a new domicil. Prisoners recognized by their captors as being deserters from their own camps are liable to suffer the extreme penalty. They are no longer recognized as antagonists of a lawful description entitled to all the consideration due to a conquered foe, but as enemies of the most dangerous character. In a somewhat similar way persons about to be made prisoners who grossly abuse their position to their captors' detriment, as by a pretended use of the white flag, are likely to get short shrift. Except, however, in extreme cases, the ancient barbarities are happily fading away into the limbo of past history, and in place of the savagery of war in the earlier times we find the more agreeable maxim that Qui merci prie, merci doit avoir. — J. H. J. in Law Times (London).
CHINESE CRIMINAL LAW.
T is well known that there is very little mercantile law in China, and it is therefore the more remarkable that Chinese merchants are distinguished for the strict integrity and fidelity with which they fulfill their contracts. The word of a Chinese merchant is as good as his bond.
Ex-Attorney-General Rosendale, one of our most eminent Albany lawyers, who recently made a tour of the Orient, tells us that it was the common testimony of Americans and Europeans transacting business there that it was so rare as to be almost an unknown thing for a Chinese merchant to attempt to defraud in either the quality or the price of his goods, or in the payment of his debts.
This is one of the most admirable traits in the Chinese character, showing a native honesty not to be found in some of the other Eastern races, and probably accounting for the fact that there is very little Chinese mercantile law because there is very little need of legislation to enforce mercantile obligations.
But the Chinese criminal law is copious enough, and an octavo volume of nearly 700 pages has recently been devoted to its exposition by Mr. Ernest Alabaster, who is a barrister of the Inner Temple in London, an advanced student at Christ College, Cambridge, and a member of the Chinese customs service.
Among other items of curious and interesting information in this book, it appears that it is not
a crime to kill a robber who enters the house at night, but it is a light crime to kill him if he enters in the daytime. To kill a man who is robbing a field by day is a capital offense, but if by night, the act is, in a measure, justifiable. A robber may be killed in self-defense, and in China you are justified in killing the man who is desecrating your father's grave.
It is a greater crime to wound with a pistol than with a sword. Robbery from relations is not regarded so seriously as from others, for, from the Chinese point of view, if one steals from his relative he is merely taking what is more or less his own by ties of kindred, and is guilty rather of breach of good manners than of actual crime. There are rigorous penalties for wrecking.
Receivers of stolen goods are often worse than the thief. Breach of trust is treated with leniency, extortion with severity. Forgery is looked upon as a species of larceny. Oaths are not required in a Chinese court, and, therefore, perjury gets off easily. Coffins must not be opened after they are once closed.
The principal punishments in China are slicing of the body in pieces, decapitation, strangulation, transportation, servitude, the bastinado, the cangue or wooden frame around the neck, fetters, branding and fines and forfeitures.
Some of these punishments seem cruel and barbarous, but are probably only resorted to in cases of extreme depravity, for it is one of the maxims in the philosophy of Chinese government that the nation must be governed by moral agency in preference to physical force.
It has been said of the Turkish government that it is a despotism tempered by assassination; but the doctrine in China is that the services of the wisest and ablest men in the nation are indispensable to its good government; and that the people have the right to depose a sovereign who, either from active wickedness or vicious indolence, gives cause to oppressive and tyrannical rule.
The emperor claims no hereditary divine right, and is not always the eldest son of the preceding monarch; the ablest son is nominated, but his right to the throne can only be established by good government, in accordance with the principles laid down in the national sacred books. The Chinese penal code commenced two thousand years ago, and copies of it are sold at so cheap a rate as to be within reach of people of the humblest Albany Argus.
(ENTLEMEN of the jury," said the distinguished barrister in the course of his address to the enlightened twelve peers of the commonwealth of Kentucky, "I submit to you, suhs, if the rulings of this honahable cote
throughout this entiah case have not been charactahized by the grossest prejudice against ouah cause and the most patent pahtiality tow'ds ouah advahsayies. Was evah, suhs, since the heinous days of the despicable Jeffreys, the sanctity of a temple of justice violated by so shameless an exhibition of judicial tuppitude and improvised jurisprudence? What, gentlemen of the ju—"
"Misteh Counsel," testily interrupted the bench, "the cote views yo' remawks as peculiah, seh. The cote, seh, will suttenly hold you in contempt, seh, fo' any repetition of such inuendoes."
May it please the cote," replied the learned counsel, "if this honahable cote, yo' honah, is competent to hold the counsel in such contempt, suh, as is in any degree commensurate with that in which the counsel holds this honahable cote, suh, the commonwealth of Kentucky itself, suh, is not wealthy enough to pay an adequate fine. The counsel, yo' honah, petitions the cote fo' a life sentence, suh."
"Misteh Counsel," returned the bench, "the cote fines you five dollars fo' contempt, seh, and the sheriff is chawged with the custody of yo' pusson until yo' fine is paid in full, seh. This bench, seh, strives to accommodate the membehs of the bah when eveh it is consistent with its dignity to do so, seh; and in this pawticulah case the cote considehs the amount of this fine as equivalent to a life sentence, seh."
"May it please the cote," rejoined the eloquent counsel, striking a pompous attitude with arms. akimbo and thumbs in the armholes of his waistcoat. "A cote of justice, yo' honah, is an institution, suh, the dignity of which should be presuhved at all hazawds and respect fo' which should be enfo'ced at any cost. The procedure of this honahable cote, suh, in elevating its bench from a position beneath contempt to the exalted pinnacle of judicial dignity upon which yo' honah has just taken yo' stand, suh, commands my profoundest respect both fo' the bench and fo' its lunned and honahable incumbent, suh. Yo' honah is to be congratulated, suh, upon an act which will commend itself to the esteem and admihration, as well as to the emolument, suh, of the commonwealth of Kentucky.
CONTRACTS FOR AN INFANT'S SERVICE.
HE law is as old as Sir Edward Coke - and older that a minor may bind himself to pay for his good teaching or instruction "whereby," as it was quaintly expressed, "he may profit himself afterwards." (Co. Litt. 172a.) It has been more recently established that he can bind himself to labor for remuneration. And to-day we can hardly allow our thoughts to be confined to males only. But in order that the contract shall be binding upon the minor, it is essential that, on its true construction as a whole, it shall be for his or her advantage. If it be not, he or she can repudiate, not only the disadvantageous clauses, but the whole contract. (Clements v. The London and North-Western Railway Company, 70 L. T. Rep. 896;  2 Q. B. 482.)
Now this evidently raises the very important question: What is for a minor's advantage in such a contract? May there be no stipulation adverse to the minor? May not the circumstances of the particular case and business be considered? May not regard be had to what are usual and customary, albeit undoubtedly restrictive or stringent, stipulations between employer and employe in the trade?
The answer, it will be found, rests upon the force to be attached to the words "on the true construction of the contract as a whole." The effect of the last three words has been admirably amplified in at least two judgments. First, by Lord Esher in Corn v. Matthews (68 L. T. Rep. 480;  1 Q. B. 310), where his lordship says: "As I understand, the rule laid down by Lord Justice Fry (in the case of De Francisco v. Barnum, 63 L. T. Rep. 38; 45 Ch. Div. 430), it is this: The mere fact of some conditions in the deed of apprenticeship being against the apprentice does not enable the court, on that ground only, to say that the agreement is void. It is impossible to frame a deed, as between a master and apprentice, in which some of the stipulations are not in favor of the one, and some in favor of the other. But if we find a stipulation in the deed which is of such a kind that it makes the whole contract an unfair one, then that makes the whole contract void." And although it will be observed Lord Esher here confines his remarks to deeds of apprenticeship, a reference to the original judgment in De Francisco's case, and to Lord Justice Kay's judgment in Clements' case, will leave no doubt on the mind that these observations are equally applicable to an infant's contract of service. Then, secondly, Mr. Justice Lush, in delivering the judgment of the court composed of Mr. Justice Mellor and himself upon the construction of a contract of labor, used the following words, words that have been approved by Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Stephen in Fellows v. Wood (59 L. T. Rep. 513), and by Lord Justice Kay in Clem
ents case, and apparently would have influenced Lord Justice Fry in considering and approving the terms of a deed of apprenticeship of an infant ward of court (cf. his judgment in De Francisco's case). 'Whether," said his lordship, "they [the provisions of the contract] are inequitable or not depends on considerations outside the contract. If such provisions were at the time common to labor contracts, or were, in the then condition of trade, such as the master was reasonably justified in imposing as a just measure of protection to himself, and if the wages were a fair compensation for the services of the youth, the contract is binding." (Leslie v. Fitzpatrick, 37 L. T. Rep. 461; 3 Q. B. Div. 229.)
The limited space at our disposal does not permit our entering into the details of the cases. The student may read, besides those already cited,
Reg. v. Lord (12 L. T. Rep. O. S. 191; 12 Q. B.
Rep. 757), Meakin v. Morris (12 Q. B. Div. 352), Evans v. Ware (67 L. T. Rep. 285;  3 Ch. 502), Mattei v. Vautro (78 L. T. Rep. 682), and Green v. Thompson (noted ante, p. 37). But we venture to suggest that it is clearly deducible from the authorities that a contract of service to be for the advantage of a minor must in no case throw an unusual power into the hands of the employer, without a correlative obligation being cast upon the latter. It is also observable that in all the cases where the cessation of wages was held fatal, the cause of such cessation was to be peculiar circumstances wholly independent of any act of the minor, the principle apparently being that a cessation of wages is in fact, in the large majority of cases, equivalent to a cessation of the means of sustenance.
It seems to follow from what has been said that it is advisable to proceed warily before commencing legal proceedings upon a contract of service with a minor. It is common knowledge that such a contract is usually arranged without professional advice, and, if reduced into writing, that an old verbose, ill-expressed form is filled up by the employer to meet the circumstances as best he can. It cannot, therefore, be surprising if the contract so arranged, when it comes to be critically examined by an expert, is found defective, and legally of no binding force against the minor, because, upon a consideration of all its terms, it is not to his manifest advantage, and the offending clauses cannot be severed from the good and advantageous ones. Law Times (London).
News of the death of Albert Francis Judd, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, has been received in this country. Chief Justice Judd's political career began with his appointment as attorney-general of the kingdom under Lunalino, in 1878.