H. Hughes, respondent, v. United Pipe Line; Alita A. Akeu, appellant, v. Sarah A. Kellogg, etc.; John T. Baxter, respondent, v. Brooklyn Life Insurance Company: Adolph Prochownick and another, appellants, v. Eugene S. Boyd; Francis B. Thurber, et al., respondent, v. John Stimmel; New York Lumber and Wood Work Company, appellant, v. Morris Schneider and another. OTHER DECISIONS. In re judicial settlement of Mary J. Clark, executrix of Freeman J. Fithian, deceased.Order of General Term affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on stipulation with costs-Max Mayer, appellant, v. James McCreery.-Order affirmed and judg ment absolute ordered for plaintiff on stipulation with costs-Jeremiah Bulger, respondent, v. Isaac A. Rosa. -Order of General Term reversed and judgment entered upon verdict affirmed with costs-Owen Donnegan, appellant, v. Joel B. Erhardt, receiver. SECOND DIVISION. JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS. Julia Frear, appellant, v. Franklin Sweet and others. respondents; Wm. Campbell, respondent, v. Abuer M. Wright and another, appellants; John L. Doug. New York, respondent; Richard Murphy, respondent, v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., appellant; Julia M. Ferry, respondent, v. Manhattan Railway Company, appellant; John B. Leverich, respondent, v. Weeks W. Culver and another, appellants; James A. Farley and an other, appellants, v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Company, respondent; Charles Herold, respondent, v. Manhattan Railway Company, appellant; Genevive Baker, respondent, v. Manhattan Railway Company, appellant; Marcus Beeman, respondent, v. George A. Banta, appellant; John J. Lehr, respondent, v. Steinway and Hunter's Point Railroad Company, appellant; Wm. H. R. Sandford, respondent, v. Standard Oil Company, appellant; Alma McCord, appellant, v Town of Ossinino, etc., respondent; James Murphy, Jr., as administrator of John Murphy, appellant, v. City of Brooklyn, respondent; Newcomb C. Bainey and others, respondents, v. John M. Forbes, Jr., appellant; Warren Chemical and Manufacturing Company, appellant, v. Giles J. Holbrook, respondent: Wm. Holdridge, appellant, v. Eurydice L. Hicks and others, respondents. Motion for re argument denied with $10 costs-Wm. Cole, executor, respondent, v. Charles F. Frost, etc. -Motion to prefer denied without costs-Henry Mason and others, appellants, v. George C. Williams, etc. -Motion to recall denied with $10 costs-Wm. F. Lawrence, etc., respondent, v. Arvin W. Harrington. -Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on stipulation with costs-George W. Law-lass, appellant, v. Merchants' Insurance Company of ton, etc., appellant, v. Wm. N. Steele.-Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation with costs-Lucy F. Wyman, administratrix, respondent, v. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., -Judgment of General Term and that entered at Trial Term reversed and the complaint dismissed with costs-J. Emmett Wells, executor, respondent, v. Town of Salina. Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide eveut-National Bank of Providence, appellant, v. Navassa Phosphate Company. Order of General Term reversed and judgment upon report of referee affirmed with costs-Win. R. H. Martin, etc., appellant, v. Frank T. Gilbert, sheriff.. Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event-Alfred Roe, etc., executors, appellant, v. Caroline A. Strong, etc.— -Judgment affirmed and judg-| ment absolute ordered on stipulation with costs-Theresa Lynch, respondent, v. First National Bank.Order General Term reversed, judgment Special Term affirmed with costs in General Term and this court-Mutual Life Insurance Company, respondent, v. Sarah F. Shipman, etc.-Judgment reversed, new granted, costs to abide event-Abel A. Crosby, etc., v. President, etc., of Delaware and Hudson Company, respondent.- -Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for respondent on the stipulation with costsSarah Hill, appellant, v. Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer county.--Order affirmed, judgment absolute ordered for defendant on stipulation with costs-Howard Vosburg, appellant, v. John F. Diefendorf.. Order affirmed and judgment ordered for respondent on stipulation with costs-Miriam C. Miller, etc., ap pellant, v. Egbert Rhinehardt. Order of General Term affirmed and motion granted with costs-S. S. Kiddy Cochran, etc., v. William A. Weichers, appellant.-Appeal dismissed with costs-In re petition of J. Newton, commissioner, etc.-Judgments reversed and judgment ordered for defendant on the demurrer with costs-Frank W. Colwell, receiver, v. Garfield National Bauk, appellant. Order affirmed with costs-Richard G. Berford, appellant, v. W. L. Wetmore, etc.-Order affirmed with costs-Joseph Taylor, appellant, v. Charles Hall.-Order affirmed with costs-Ulrice Lesser, appellant, v. Sarah A. Williams. trial -Appeal dismissed with costs-W. J. Finlay, appellant, v. R. B. Chapman.-Order General Term reversed; that of Special Term affirmed with costs in this court and the Supreme Court-Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago v. Alphonso W. Blye, receiver, respondent.-Orders of General and Special Terms reversed and the motion to set aside judgment granted with costs in this court and the Supreme Court- Arthur G. Yates v. James J. Guthrie, appellant.-Order affirmed with costs-George L. Whitman and others, v. John R. Haines and others (five cases).Judgment of General Term and decree of surrogate so far as appealed from reversed, order of reference vacated and a new hearing granted, costs to abide event JUDGMENT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL GRANTED, COSTS ΤΟ ABIDE EVENT. Corn Exchange Bank, appellant, v. Farmers' National Bank of Lancaster, Penn., respondent; National City Bank of Brooklyn, respondent, v. Robert E. Wescott, as president, appellant; Robert C. Mar tin, appellant, v. Maria Ann Rector, respondent; H. respondents, v. Horace K. Thurber and others, appelJolsens, Taendstikke, Fabrikker Enebak and Brijn. lants; George H. Brennan, appellant, v. Read Gordon, Jr., and another, respondents; Mary B. Van Cleaf, apCharlotte M. Smith, respondent, v. Agricultural Inpellant, v. Catharine Burns and others, respondents; surance Company, appellant. OTHER DECISIONS. Motion for re-argument denied with $10 costs-Elnathan Sweet, Jr., and another, appellants, v. Dorilus Morrison and others, respondents.-Motion for reargument denied with $10 costs-Elizabeth D. Vail, respondent, v. Wm. M. Reynolds, appellant.-Order of General Term reversed and judgment entered on verdict affirmed with costs-Jacob C. Van Wycklin, appellant, v. City of Brooklyn, respondent.-Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against appellants with costs-Levi P. Rose, appellant, v. David Hawley and others, respondents. Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against appellant with costs-Margaret Slattery, appellant, v. Albert F. Schwannecker and another, respondents.-Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against ap. pellant with costs-Elizabeth A. L. Hyatt, appellant, v. Cyrus Clark, respondent.-Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against appellant without costs-Cyrus Clark, respondent, v. Elizabetha L. Hyatt, appellant. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, MARCH 8, 1890. CURRENT TOPICS. THE first annual report of the State commission in McDonald, Goodwin Brown and Henry Reeves, is a document of more than ordinary importance. The principal recommendation of it is to close the twenty remaining county insane asylums, and transfer their inmates to the State asylums. This is based on a thorough investigation of the county asylums and a demonstration of their inadequacy. We have seldom read a public document so strongly appealing to the sympathies as this. There is undoubtedly no intentional cruelty practiced in these asylums, but owing mainly to insufficient pecuniary provision, the poor creatures are there treated worse than a humane and careful farmer treats a valuable cow or horse. Huddled together in cramped and ill-ventilated quarters, without proper water, fire, clothing, food, medicines or bedding, without suitable opportunities for exercise, in filth, squalor and wretchedness, these miserable beings are treated with a shocking disregard of the decencies due to sex, with a callous indifference, and even without an apparent recognition of the fact that they are unfortunate human beings, deserving and demanding the pitiful care of the community to whom God has given them in trust. Their condition would be as bad as that of the Siberian exiles if they had their reason. Lest it should be thought that we exaggerate, we will give some extracts from the report: ** * * mon practice at most of these places to bathe three or * * "An examination showed that some beds, and especially those of the disturbed and filthy patients, were simply too vile for description. In many instances the mattresses were literally reeking with filth, and evidently were not dried from one day's end to another. In a few instances only were woollen blankets provided; in nearly all the cheap cotton quilts, which when they are filthy are so difficult to cleanse, were provided for the patients. In nearly all of these institutions, too, the bedding is not changed as frequently as it should be. The almost uniform reply to the inquiry, How often are the sheets changed?' was, One sheet is changed each week.' And aside from the beds and bedding, the practice which prevails in many instances of permitting or compelling two patients to sleep together cannot be too strongly condemned. The idea of two ordinary sick people being compelled to lie together is sufficiently repugnant; how much worse for two insane people to be required to occupy the same bed. It should in justice be said however that in some of these county alms-houses this practice does not exist at all and in others to only a limited extent. It occurred where there was a lack of beds or where there was crowding. In one institution the commis-out for exercise in the open air, though some of the sion found that a considerable number of the beds were occupied by two patients each. Among the universally recognized necessities of insane asylums is an abundant supply of pure and wholesome water. It is exceptional to find one of these places adequately supplied with water. * * * It is literally true, however difficult of belief, that it is a comVOL. 41 No. 10. institutions are provided with small airing courts or yards which are used by the patients in the summer season. During the rest of the time they are compelled to remain on the corridors or wards in idleness, even on pleasant days, with little or nothing beyond the benches and barren, uncolored walls to divert or occupy their attention; while in some cases they are * * * left a considerable portion of the time without attendants, the latter being frequently called away in the discharge of other duties or on account of personal matters. ** In one institution the commission observed an intelligent woman sitting in a ward, and when spoken to in regard to her condition she said that she was suffering from epilepsy; that she had formerly been a teacher; that she had been a private patient; that her money had become exhaused, and that she was now dependent on public bounty. When asked if she cared to see a daily paper, she said that she had not seen any paper in months. * It was a matter of surprise to the commission to find in the insane departments of the county alms-houses that little or no provision has been made for the religious worship of the inmates. Another important feature of modern asylum management, and without which the highest degree of success is impossible of attainment, is that of classification, based on the various forms and conditions of disease that are represented among the inmates. For example, quiet and orderly patients should not be compelled to associate with the violent and disturbed, nor should the filthy usually be kept on the same ward with the neat and tidy, or the dangerous and destructive with those that are harmless. The suicidal, too, should be placed by themselves and kept under careful observation. * * * * * * ** * * *The superintendent of one county institution said that he was constantly fearful of the result of improper contact of the sexes. This fear would appear to be not entirely groundless, as in one institution within a year or two a case was established of intercourse between an idiot woman and an insane man, which resulted in the birth of a child. This occurrence was admitted to the commission, although it appears that a previous attempt was made to conceal the fact from the Legislature and the public by means of misleading affidavits. ** * The commission regrets to say that in more than three-fourths of the county institutions no suitable means of fire protection was found, while in several of them there was absolutely none at all. In two only was a fire-escape observed. * The floor was wet and otherwise soiled with excrement, the odor from which was exceedingly offensive. In fact, it smelled more like a privy vault than a place for the confinement of a human being. The beds in these rooms were examined and presented a most shocking appearance. The ticks were only partly filled with straw and the bedding was saturated and discolored by human filth. The odor from the beds was extremely offensive, penetrating the whole building. * She was bare-footed and evidently had nothing on her person except a blue cotton skirt and a man's coat. The attendant when asked if the woman had on any other clothing, replied that she had not. She said that the patient was extremely filthy and disturbed; that she was kept in the room in order to avoid trouble; that occasionally she was brought out and strapped to a wooden post which supported the ceiling of the room adjoining. The floor of the room which this patient occupied was wet and foul with urine. The day in question was so cold that snow had fallen and that there was no way for warm air to enter the room except through the door, which * * * was kept closed. In another institution a woman was discovered sitting in a strong wooden chair, secured to the floor. A board hinged to one arm of * ** * missioners the chair was unlocked and the woman taken out, and they examined the contrivance, after which the keeper, a man, unhesitatingly raised the woman's clothing and replaced her on the chair. It should be stated that this was done openly in the presence of the commissioners, without any attempt at concealment, the keeper apparently not realizing its impropriety. When questioned and admonished, he explained that he had been in the habit of looking after the wants of the women patients as much as he had those of the men; that his wife had other duties to perform a good deal of the time; that it was absolutely necessary that these women should receive attention, and that he had been among such people so long that he had come to make little distinction between the sexes. It is worthy of remark that this keeper appeared to be one of the best and most humane of all that we met. * ** There were in round numbers fifty patients. The entire work of the institution, except the little performed by the patients, was done by the keeper, his wife and a 'hired girl.' ** * The covering of this chair was befouled with human excrement, which was thoroughly dry at the time it was observed. An examination of this old creature showed that he was suffering from bed-sores; that the sheets were soiled and that he was lying on a straw tick that was not more than half filled. * * * To the most casual observer it would have been evident that the man, aside from his clearly marked insanity, was much debilitated. When asked why he was fastened, he said it was to prevent his running away: that when he went out to work he was chained. ***The attendant *** was told to bring the anklets and chains, and to place them upon the patient as they were placed when he was taken out to work. This he did without hesitation. * * .* At this same place, a woman was observed sitting upon the ward with a badly swollen face. She complained that she had been unable for days to see the doctor. * The medical commissioner examined the woman's face and found that the swelling and pain were due to an ulcerated tooth, from which a very little medical attention would have relieved her. * On the women's ward of another institution the scene presented was that of a veritable bedlam. In this ward were found, indiscriminately huddled together, paupers, children, vagrants and insane, all in a state of extreme disorder. One motherly-looking woman was discovered going about the place bare-footed, with apparently nothing on but a skirt and a cotton under-waist, the latter of which was so much disordered as to permit the exposure of her person. The keeper explained that at intervals this woman was 'sane' and was then permitted to leave the institution. * **One doctor in charge said: 'If the patient is a man, who bcomes violent in my presence, I choose to deal with him alone. If an attendant is with me, I do not wish his help with such cases as I have had experience with in this institution. I can walk up to any of our men, however violent they may be, and throw them on their backs, without striking or hurting them. After this treatment, three times out of four they are humbled. If they are not, I let them regain their feet and throw them again, and if this does not answer, they are confined to a room."" the chair and fastened to the other by means of a pad-it lock rested across her lap so that she could not possibly rise until it was removed; a box-like arrangement The patient was an exceedingly filthy one. Unless thus confined, she would defile the whole place in the course of a few hours, and that the chair had been constructed 80 that the excrement might be deposited in the chamber underneath. At the request of the com * * * * This is a shocking, even disgusting, recital. But ought to be read more extensively than it ever will be in the pages of a public document, and we spread the painful details before our readers in the hope that some one will be stirred to activity in the endeavor to ameliorate the condition of these unfor tunate beings. While the people are building a Capitol at a cost of twenty millons, and are proposing to pay fifteen millions for the privilege of holding a fair in the city of New York, it will be a wholesome lesson to legislators and to the community to behold the rottenness under the goodly outside of our social fabric, to be reminded how they live for show and rivalry and luxury, and how neglectful and callous they are to human suffering. We are tender of our criminals in comparison; we give them wholesome food, sufficient clothing, and keep them moderately clean; we compel them to go to church, and we furnish them with good reading. If any of them have deserved death, after loading them down with flowers, we go about to invent some painless and speedy method of taking them off. But for these poor distracted creatures, who have committed no crime, we have nothing better to offer than this re port discloses. We are glad to learn that a bill has been introduced in both houses of the Legislature to close these chambers of horrors and put their inmates under the care and protection of the State. It ought to pass at once, so that this burning disgrace may be wiped away. And until this is done we had better dispense with grand staircases and other senseless displays of selfish wealth and unfeeling power. men are not born free, it suffices to answer that whatever measure of freedom may be implied, all men are equally entitled to it. All are entitled to the same just liberty. Thus considered, there is nothing in the time-honored declaration that is not demonstrably true, and nothing but unworthy quibbling can for a moment darken the beneficent luminousness of the expression. NOTES OF CASES. 'N People's Bank v. Franklin Bank, Supreme Court that when a bank pays a forged check without rethe identity of the person to whom it is paid, and quiring identification or preserving any evidence of indorses it, and sends it for payment to the bank upon which it is drawn, the latter bank, upon discovering the forgery after having paid the check, The court said: "The complainant bank, upon reto the credit of defendant, might well rely upon the ceiving such check in due course of mail for deposit exercise of due prudence and diligence on the part of its depositor, the defendant bank, and might well can recover the amount thereof from the former. In the Nineteenth Century for January Mr. Hux-regard the latter's indorsement of the check as sig- nificant of the fact that such prudence had been exer- citing numerous cases, among which is the case of Harris v. Bradley, 7 Yerg. 310, where Judge Green lays down the doctrine as to the effect of an indorsement in guaranteeing the genuineness of prior indorsements, in the language as quoted. It is true that in the Tennessee case the language was used with reference to a note, and not a check, and such may also be the case with other of the authorities cited in said note which we have not examined. Now while we concede there is quite a difference between this rule, as applicable to indorsers on commercial paper, and as applied to checks, so far as the liability of the drawer is concerned, yet we see no reason why the bank should not have the benefit of such rule where the indorsement is made under circumstances which establish or impute negligence to the indorser. The case of Levy v. Bank, 4 Dall. 234, and Bank of U. S. v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat. 333, are relied on as authority for the judgment of the chancellor in the case at bar. The facts of the case of 4 Dallas are so briefly stated as to leave us uninformed as to the manner in which the question was presented. The case of Bank of U. S. v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat. 333, was where a forgery was by raising the notes of the defendant bank. The notes, coming in due course to the United States bank, were presented to the Bank of Georgia, and passed to the credit of the United States bank. Nineteen days thereafter the forgery was discovered and notice given. Upon refusal of the United States bank to make good the loss, the credit was, by the Georgia bank, withdrawn from the account, and the United States bank brought suit for money had and received. It was held that the plaintiff could recover. While the reasoning of the learned judge, and much of the argument, tends to sustain the contention of the defendant here, still the court put its judgment in that case distinctly upon the ground that the defendants were bound to know their own notes, and having received them without objection, they cannot recall their assent. While these two cases are criticised by Mr. Daniel as unsound, that criticism, so far as the latter case is concerned, may be well confined to the argument contained in the opinion; for the point decided is in no manner hostile, as we understand it, to the principle announced by Mr. Daniel, and adopted by us in the disposition of the case at bar; for there is nothing to show that there had been any negligence on the part of the United States bank in receiving the notes of the Georgia bank; and we can well understand how there could and ought to be a higher obligation upon the bank to know the genuineness of its notes of issue, passing current as money, than rests upon it to know the signature of the depositor, on a check indorsed by a solvent correspondent. But putting them both on the same footing, there is wanting in the report of the case in 10 Wheaton any evidence of negligence on the part of the United States bank. The views we have expressed, and the principle upon which we reverse the chancellor and award judgment here for the complainant, are not only sustained by Mr. Daniel, but also by Mr. Chitty, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Bolles, who fortify their conclusions by ample authority. See Chit. Bills (13th Am. ed.), *431, *485; 2 Pars. Not. & B. 80; Bolles Banks, § 189; Hardy v. Bank, 51 Md. 585; Bank v. Morgan, 117 U. S. 96, 112; Ellis v. Insurance Co., 4 Ohio St. 628; McKleroy v. Bank, 14 La. Ann. 458; Bank v. Bangs, 106 Mass. 441; Rouvant v. Bank, 63 Tex. 610; Bank v. Ricker, 71 Ill. 439." In United States v. Bayle, 40 Fed. Rep. 664, the indictment was mailing threatening postal cards. The court said: "If the postal cards in question are non-mailable, it is because they contain language of a 'threatening character' within the meaning of the law, or because they contain language 'calculated * * * and obviously intended to reflect injuriously upon the character or conduct' of the person to whom they were addressed. * * Two of the cards contain a demand for the payment of money alleged to be due, and a threat to place the demand in the hands of a lawyer for collection, if not paid at once. The question therefore arises whether Congress intended to prohibit the mailing of postal cards containing or on which are written threats of that kind. The language of the statute * is very general, and certainly may be construed as a prohibition against mailing postal cards which contain threats to bring suits if debts are not paid, as well as being a prohibition against mailing cards containing threats of personal violence or threats of any other character. It is most probable, I think, that Congress intended the act should receive that construction. It is a well-known fact, that prior to the passage of the law, some persons had made a practice of enforcing the payment of debts by mailing postal cards or letters bearing offensive, threatening or abusive matter, which was open to the inspection of all persons through whose hands such postal cards or letters happened to pass. In some quarters the practice alluded to of sending communications through the mail that were both calculated and intended to humiliate and injure the persons addressed in public estimation, had become one of the recognized methods of compelling the payment of debts. Congress evidently intended by the act of September 26, 1888, to utterly suppress the prac tice in question. * * * I conclude that a postal card on which is written a demand for the payment of a debt, and a threat to sue, or to place the demand in the hands of a lawyer for suit, if the debt is not paid, is now non-mailable matter. Henceforth persons writing such demands and threats must inclose them in sealed envelopes, or subject themselves to criminal prosecution. The language employed in the postal card described in the first count is not of a threatening character, and in my opinion no jury would be warranted in finding, in view of its contents, that it was obviously intended by the writer to reflect injuriously on the character or conduct of the person addressed, or to injure or degrade him in the eyes of the public. It is true that it contains a demand for the payment of a |