Fishburn v. City of Chicago (Ill.) Municipal Corpora- Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. (Ga.) Parent Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Hicks (Tenn.) Sale-Warranty- Gates v. City of Toledo (Ohio) Damages-Breach of Gates v. Tippecanoe Stone Co. (Ohio) Corporations- Gelsthorpe v. Furnell (Mont.) Constitutionality of - - Acceptance-Re- Grumbach v. Hirsch (Tex.) Draft Handley v. Jackson (Oreg.) Appearance by Attorney- Hang v. Riley (Ga.) Bills and Notes-Bona Fide Holder Hanson v. Hartse (Minn.) Sale-Implied Warranty, R. Harrison v. Brophy (Kan.) Will-Bequest for Celebra- Hill v. Campell Commission Co. (Neb.) Conversion of - Holden v. Hardy (U. S. S. C.) Constitutionality of the Hong Wah, In re (U. S. D. C., Cal.) Constitutional Law House v. Kountze (Tex.) Bank-Check against Deposit Houston v. State (Wis.) Animals-Destruction of Dis- Illinois Central R. Co. v. O'Keefe (Ill.) Carriers of Pas- Illinois Steel Co. v. Mann (Ill.) Continuance of Serv- Irwin v. Reeves Pulley Co. (Ind.) Liability of Bank in John V. Farwell Co. v. Sweetzer (Colo.) Corporations Kingman v. Watson (Wis.) Sale-Warranty-Waiver- Knaver v. City of Louisville (Ky.) Municipal Corpora- 508. Lanter v. Jarris-Conklin Mortgage Trust Co. (U. S. C. Lardner v. Williams (Wis.) Wills - Construction- Lees v. Colgan (Cal.) Reward-Rights of Police Officer, Lewis v. Clay (English) Liability upon Negotiable In. Little Rock & F. S. Ry. Co. v. Oppenheimer (Ark.) - Torts of Servant, R. D. 384. McCracken v. Smathers (N. Car.) Malpractice - Dentist McDonald v. Insurance Co. (N. H.) Life Insurance- McFarlane v. Town of Sullivan (Wis) Negligence- McGowan v. City of Boston (Mass.) Municipal Corpo McLarth v. Hunt (N. Y.) Will-Life Tenant and Re- 462. - - Morrow v. Southern Express Co. (Ga.) Contract Nical v. Fitch (Mich.) Contracts Performance-De- struction of Subject-matter, ann. case, 28. Oleson v. Wilson (Mont.) How far Courts of a State Pearce v. Will (Ind.) Following Trust Funds-Banks- Pedigo v. Commonwealth (Ky.) Admissibility of Testi- Obtaining People v. Hall (N. Y.) Power of Court to Exclude the People v. Hubert (Cal.) Criminal Law-Murder-Insane Delusions-Irresistible Impulse, R. D. 146. People v. Martin (Mich.) Criminal Law-Larceny- Petz v. Voigt Brewery Co. (Mich.) Landlord-Duty to Porch v. Arkansas Milling Co. (Ark.) Partnership- Ridley v. McPherson (Tenn.) Will-Construction-De- Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Effect of Suicide upon Life Insurance Policy, Ed. 279. Sanger v. Warren (Tex.) Vendor and Purchaser-As- sumption of Mortgage-Undisclosed Principal, R. Sawrie v. State of Tennessee (U. S. C. C., Tenn.) Con- stitutional Law-Interstate Commerce-State Stat- utes-Original Packages, R. D. 2. Sheridan Gas, Oil & Coal Co. v. Pearson (Ind.) Trespass to Realty-Tenants by Entireties, R. D. 252. Smyth v. Ames (U. S. S. C.) Validity of the Nebraska Maximum Freight Rate Act, 489. Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Co. (W. Va.) Negligence -Pleading-Presumption of Negligence, R. D. 254. Spoey v. Evans (Ind.) Sale of Growing Trees-License Springer Land Assn. v. Ford (U. S. S. C.) Mechanic's Lien-Construction of Statutes-Property Covered State v. Bates (Ind.) Effect of the Presence of a Ste- nographer in the Grand Jury Room While the Grand Jury are Considering Indictments, Ed. 1. State v. Repp (Iowa) Criminal Law -Larceny-Wild Bees-Property Rights, R. D. 213. State v. Shive (Kan.) Criminal Law-Evidence of Alibi, State v. Switzler (Mo.) Validity of the Missouri and Illinois Inheritance Tax Law, Ed. 403. State v. Wade, Sheriff (Md.) Sheriff-Liability of Sure- ites-Lynching of Prisoner, R. D. 491. State v. Williams (Wash.) Criminal Law - Constitu- tional Guaranties-Defendant Manacled in Court, State v. Wise (Oreg.) Offer of Marriage by Defendant as an Answer to Prosecution for Seduction, Ed. 145. State Board v. Holliday (Ind.) Taxation of Life Insur Steenerson v. The Great Northern R. R. Co. (Mich.) Railroad Company-Fixing Railroad Rates, R. D. 3. Stuart v. Hayden, Receiver (U. S. S. C.) National Bank Shares-Liability of Holder as Transferrer-Insolv Stuckey v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. (Ga.) Malicious Prosecution-Advice of Attorney-Good Faith, ann. Sullivan v. Waterman (R. I.) Nuisance-Private Nul- sance-Using Lodging House Rooms for Assigna. Swinburn v. Mills (Wash.) Mortgage-Foreclosure- Union Nat. Bank v. Milburn & Stoddard Co. (N. Dak United States v. Boyer (U. S. D. C., Mo.) Validity of United States v. Coal Dealers' Association of California United States v. Fay (U. S. D. C., Mo.) Prosecution for United States v. Hopkins (U. S. C. C., Kan.) Monopo Wadhams & Co. v. Balfour (Oreg.) Sale-Passing Title -Delivery of Bill of Lading, R. D. 232. Warner v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Car- Weaver v. Carter (Ga.) Validity of Verdict Rendered Welch v. Hubschmitt Building & Woodworking Co. (N. J.) Building Contract- Construction Archi- tect's Certificate-Performance-Question for Jury -Surety of Contractor-Liability-Discharge, ann. Welty v. Jacobs (Ill.) Injunction-Breach of Contract -Specific Performance, R. D. 318, 405. Wheelock v. Presbyterian Church (Cal.) Religious So- Whitcomb v. Bacon (Mass.) Brokers-Right to Com Wiedman v. Keller (Ill.) Sale of Meats-Warranty of Williams v. State (Ga.) Admissibility of Evidence Il- No. 1. Penalties and Liquidated Damages. By No. 2. The Summary Jurisdiction of Courts over Attorneys at their Bar, and the Power to Compel Good Faith Toward Clients, and a Restitution of Funds or Property Converted or Wrongfully Withheld. By Frank W. Bab- No. 3. Eminent Domain and Taxation as Re- lated to the Use or Purpose for which Prop- erty is Taken or Taxes Levied. By Willis L. No. 4. Sales as Cover for Usury. By James No. 5. Oral Cruelty as a Ground of Divorce. By No. 6. Parol Evidence Relative to Negotiable Securities. By S. S. Merrill, 110. No. 7. Modern View of the Nature of Deposits. No. 8. Abatement of the Smoke Nuisance in Large Cities. By Eugene McQuillin, 147. No. 9. Functions of the Trial Judge. By Morton No. 10. Application of Homestead Exemption Laws to Unpaid Rent of Leased Homestead. No. 11. Title Notes. By A. M. Sturdevant, 215. No. 12. The Action of Malicious Prosecution. By No. 14. Movable and Immovable Fixtures. By No. 15. Has a Check Holder a Right of Action Against a Bank for Refusal to Pay Same. By No. 16. Pardons. By Alfred F. Sears, Jr., 320.' No. 17. Homicides by Peace Officers. By Lewis No. 18. Recent Phases of Contract Law-IV. Per- formance to the Satisfaction of the Promisor. No. 19. The Joint and Several Liability of Tort- No. 20. The Mortgagor's Rights as Against the No. 21. Absolute Privilege as a Legal Excuse in Libel Suits. By Flora V. Woodward Tibbits, Can a Married Woman Release her Right Conveyance. By C. B. Ames, 448. No. 23. Attempts to Commit Impossible Crimes. No. 24. Effect of Insolvency upon the Statute of Limitations. By C. A. Bucknam, 493. No. 25. The Effect of State Legislation upon the Central Law Journal. ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 1, 1898. in an early Maine case which seems to have escaped the notice of the Maine court in its later decision. State v. Clough, 49 Me. 573. In State v. Miller (Iowa), 64 N. W. Rep. 288, it was complained that the clerk of the grand jury, who (as required by the statute of Iowa) was not a member of the grand jury, asked the witnesses certain questions, at the request of the foreman,-the clerk being a practicing attorney, and the court said: "The only serious question presented in regard to him was whether he so far violated the law, in participating in the examination of witnesses, as to give cause for setting aside the indictment. The statute under which he acted provided that he should 'take no part in the proceedings aside from his clerical duties,' and that he should 'strictly abstain from expressing any opinion upon any question before the grand jury, either to the jury, or to any member thereof.' Code, § 4275, as amended. It appears that the clerk in this case asked the witnesses some questions, but they were asked at the request of the foreman, and were followed by questions asked by different members of the grand jury. Such a practice is not to be commended, but the district court necessarily found that what was done in this case was not prejudicial to the defendant, and we think the conclusion is fully justified by the record." See, also, on this point, Com. v. Bradney, 126 Pa. St. 205; State v. Justus, 11 Oreg. 178; State v. Baker, 33 W. Va. 319, where it is substantially held that an indictment will not be set aside on the ground of informalities or irregularities when it is not shown that the defendant has been prejudiced in his substantial right. The liberal view of the Indiana court, on the main question, seems to be upheld by the weight of authority. In a recent issue we called attention to the case of State v. Bowman, 38 Atl. Rep. 331, wherein the Supreme Court of Maine held that the presence of a stenographer before a grand jury, by express order of the court, while witnesses are being examined, who takes stenographic notes of the testimony, although he retires before the jury commence their deliberations, invalidates an indictment found under such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Indiana in the more recent case of State v. Bates, 48 N. E. Rep. 2, takes a contrary view of the matter, the holding being that the mere fact that a stenographer employed by the prosecuting attorney was present in the grand jury room, and took down in shorthand the evidence on which the indictment was based, for the use of the prosecution, is not ground for quashing the indictment, unless it appears that the accused was prejudiced thereby. The court proceeds upon the ground that, in the absence of statute authorizing or prohibiting one not a member of the grand jury, being present and taking stenographic notes, it is not in violation of law and a person so attending is, in effect, the assistant of the prosecuting attorney. It was with some such idea that the federal courts have held that the attendance of a stenographer before the grand jury for the purpose of taking the evidence for the use of the district attorney in the discharge of his official duties was not irregular or illegal. U. S. v. Simmons, 46 Fed. Rep. 65. And the courts of many of the States have held that the presence of a stranger in the grand jury room during the investigation of a criminal charge is not sufficient to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights. Shattuck v. State, 11 Ind. 473; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. App. 356, 32 N. E. Rep. 335; State v. Kimball, 29 Iowa, 267; Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 516, 535, 36 S. W. Rep. 947. In the State of Illinois this question was considered at an early date, and the view above stated was adopted. Granger v. Warrington, 3 Gilm. 299. That doctrine was also laid down depriving the employee of the equal protec A recent Pennsylvania legislature undertook something new in the line of taxation. They passed an act imposing upon every employer of foreign-born unnaturalized male persons over twenty-one years of age a tax of three cents a day for each day that each of such persons may be employed and author izing the deduction of that sum from the wages of such employees. The United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania has very properly held it unconstitutional, as son within the jurisdiction of a State exemption from any burdens or charges other than such as are equally laid upon all others under like circumstances. The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. Rep. 722, 733." NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS. INTERSTATE COм- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW tion of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. The general purpose and scope of this constitutional provision was stated by Mr. Justice Field in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, who said that it was intended "not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights; that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness, and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their per-portation of cigarettes. It was held that a sons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; that no greater burden should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition, and that in the administration of criminal justice no different or higher punishment should be imposed upon one than such as is prescribed to all for like offenses." In a later case it was shown that, under the legislation of congress, intended to enforce the constitutional provision, the latter embraces within its protection not citizens merely but all "persons" within the jurisdiction of the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. The plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case, it appears, was a British subject. The court said that "the tax is of an unusual character, and is directed against and confined to a particular class of persons. Evidently the act is intended to hinder the employment of foreign-born unnaturalized male persons over twenty-one years of age. The act is hostile to and discriminates against such persons. It interposes to the pursuit by them of their lawful avocations obstacles to which others, under like circumstances, are not subjected. It imposes upon these persons burdens which are not laid upon others in the same calling and condition. The tax is an arbitrary deduction from the daily wages of a particular class of persons. Now, the equal protection of the laws declared by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution secures to each per Tennessee statute entirely prohibiting the importation or sale of cigarettes is invalid, as an interference with interstate commerce, in so far as it applies to cigarettes brought into the State, from other States or foreign countries, and sold in the original packages of importation. The court said that "if the State enactment regulating traffic in a particular article be in fact a quarantine or an inspection statute, and, as such, is aimed at something uncommercial, by reason of its state or condition, such as articles infected, or disguised so as to be a cheat calculated to lead a purchaser into buying something he did not intend to buy, as in Plumey v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, the enactment may be upheld as an exercise of the police power of the States, and not a regulation of commerce. But this Tennessee statute, in so far as it prevents importation and sales in the original package by the importer, is not a quarantine or inspection statute, and is not based upon the state or condition of the cigarette. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1086, involved a statute of the State of Georgia prohibiting any operation of railroad trains on the Sabbath day. It was upheld as an exercise of the police power of the State, and not a regulation of interstate commerce. The opinion contains no language in any way modifying the doctrine of Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, or that of the cases following and reasserting the doctrine of that case. There is no possible conflict between Hennington v. Georgia and Leisy v. Hardin. It is but another of the class of cases like those |