not guilty of any deception in promising to do so. It is the act of seducing and debauching which is the gravamen of the offense, and, if this is done by promises of marriage, the crime is complete, no matter what the defendant's intentions may have been, or what offers he may have made after the act was consummated. Section 3486, Revised Statutes, provides that: "If any person shall, under or by promise of marriage, seduce and debauch any unmarried female of good repute, under eighteen years of age, he shall be deemed guilty of felony * but if, before judgment, upon an indictment, the defendant marry the woman thus seduced, it shall be a bar to any other prosecution of the offense, but an offer to marry the female seduced by the party shall constitute no defense to such prosecution." While, by the plain provisions of the statute, marriage by the defendant of the female seduced, before judgment, is a bar to the prosecution, the mere offer to do so is not. This position finds support in the case of State v. Bierce, 27 Conn. 319, where, under a statute like the Missouri statute, it is said: "The proposition that a virtuous and innocent female, who has been persuaded by a man to surrender her chastity to him by a promise of marriage, which is the strongest temptation that could be offered to prevail upon her to part with her innocence, and in which she implicitly confided, is not, although such promise was made honestly, and with an intention to perform it, within the protection intended by the statute on which this information is founded, is, on the face of it, so absurd that we deem it unnecessary, formally, to refute it. Is it less a seduction that it was accomplished by the most powerful inducement which could be offered to his victim, or that such inducement consisted of a promise which was intended to be performed?" Moreover, the prosecuting witness testified that, although the defendant always expressed a willingness to marry her, and never refused to do so, she never saw or heard of him after the 5th day of July, 1891, until after his arrest, when he wrote her. testimony, as it was of no consequence or import ance. 1 There was no error in refusing to give the instructions prayed for by defendant. The first and third embodied the good faith on the part of the defendant in promising to marry Mattie Owens, which was not the law, as hereinbefore stated, while the second was substantially given in the other instructions given on the part of the State. During the argument before the jury on the merits of the case, one of the attorneys for the State remarked "that the return of the writs by the officers showed that the defendant ran away, or skipped out, and that the prosecuting witness had to work in a tobacco factory to support herself and child." Counsel for defendant objected to such remarks, and the court then stopped the attorney, rebuked him, and directed him to confine his remarks to the record and facts in proof. This is all that the court We are juscould do, and all that was required. tified in assuming that the rebuke of the court warned the jury to disregard the statements. State v. Lee, 66 Mo. 165; State v. Finn, 24 Mo. App. 344. As there is no error in the record which will justify a reversal of the cause, the judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. All concur. PORTRAIT PUBLISHED WITHOUT UDGE MCADAM, in the New York Superior JUD Court, Dec. 29, 1893, decided that a publication has no right to print a picture of a person, in a voting contest to decide his popularity, as compared with another, without his consent. The decision was handed down in the case of Rudolph Marks against Joseph Jaffa, a publisher. The plaintiff is a Hebrew actor, at present studying law in the University of the City of New York. The publisher recently started a voting contest to decide whether Marks was the most popular student. Judge McAdam said in his opinion: "If a person can be compelled to submit to have the use of his name and his profile put up in this manner for public criticism, to test his popularity with certain people, he could be required to submit to the same test as to his honesty or morality, or any other virtue or vice he was The court, in defining "good repute," as used in the statute, adopted the same definition as did this court in the case of State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658, which we are satisfied is correct, and according to the meaning as those words are used in the statute.supposed to possess, and the victim selected would Another contention is that the court should have instructed the jury that defendant was a competent witness in his own behalf, and the weight to be given to his testimony, although no such instruction was asked by him. A sufficient answer to this contention is that the only matters that defendant testified to were that as to his name, and that he had promised to marry the prosecuting witness. Certainly, there was no error, under such a state of facts, in the failure of the court to instruct as to his competency, and the weight to be given to his have either to vindicate his character in regard to the virtue or vice selected, or be declared inferior to his competitor, a comparison which might prove most odious; indeed, he might be placed in competition with a person whose association might be peculiarly offensive, as well as detrimental, to him. Such a wrong is not without its remedy. No newspaper or institution, no matter how worthy, has the right to use the name or picture of any one for such purpose without his consent." An injunction is granted pending trial. NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION - BLOWER. THE annual election meeting of the New should express our conviction. I therefore offer this resolution." In seconding the resolution Mr. Nicoll said: "When I saw that the nomination of Mr. Hornblower had been rejected by the committee Tork City Bert loss and on was held last Tues of the Senate I certainly blared the surprise it al day evening at 7 West Twenty-ninth street. After the routine business James C. Carter submitted resolutions deploring strongly the fact that the judiciary committee of the Senate had made a report adverse to the confirmation of the nomination of William B. Hornblower as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Ex-District Attorney De Lancey Nicoll seconded the adoption of the resolutions, which were passed by a unanimous vote as follows: Resolved, That this association has learned with the deepest regret that the judiciary committee of the Senate has made a report adverse to the confirmation of the nomination of William B. Hornblower as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Resolved, That while under ordinary circumstances this association might hesitate to make any expression intended to reach the Senate, of its opinion upon the fitness of any judiciary nomination while it is pending for consideration before that body, yet in view of the fact that the adverse action is reported to be based upon Mr. Hornblower's supposed lack of the practice and experience requisite to qualify him for the place for which he was nominated, it fears that its silence would be misunderstood if it failed to declare its clear conviction that the opinion of the judiciary committee must have been founded upon mistaken or insufficient information. Resolved, That this association, after a long and intimate acquaintance with Mr. Hornblower and with his professional employments, feels entirely justified in declaring its opinion that he is, in point of learning, character, and experience, eminently fitted for the high office to which he has been nominated. Resolved, That copies of these resolutions, duly authenticated, be forwarded to the senators from the State of New York. those who knew him and understood his eminent qualifications for the place. I have even addressed senators as to Mr. Hornblower's fitness for the position. I am inclined to go further and to express some apprehension lest this great office is the football of politics, and Mr. Hornblower is the victim of politicians. This is not an office to be trifled with. The imputations cast by the Senate on Mr. Hornblower's ability are wholly unfounded. He has the confidence of the entire bar association. I therefore second the resolution." Wheeler H. Peckham, president of the bar association, said: "I wish to say a word before this resolution is voted upon. We have all known Mr. Hornblower well, and know him to be in every way competent. We can hardly understand the slight that seems to have been put upon him. We should say that we, who know him well, believe he would adorn any position." Elihu Root spoke in the same vein. The following ticket for the ensuing year was elected: President, Wheeler H. Peckham; vicepresidents, Francis C. Barlow, John E. Parsons, Elihu Root, Albert Stickney, Charles E. Strong; recording secretary, Silas B. Brownell; corresponding secretary, David B. Ogden; treasurer, S. Sidney Smith. This makes the third term for Mr. Peckham as president. This is contrary to the established custom, but it was determined to make an exception to the rule out of compliment to Mr. Peckham. "I should have hestitated under ordinary circumstances," said Mr. Carter, "before bringing HOW THE JURY IN THE PRENDERGAST such a matter to the attention of this association. TRIAL WORKED. The Senate of the United States is rightly presumed THE story of the proceedings in the jury-room to be fully qualified to pass judgment upon the T when the twelve men left the court room to de cide the fate of Prendergast is interesting. As soon as they reached the room they elected Jacob Sutter foreman and selected another of the members as a clerk. Without argument, they proceeded to ballot on the question, "Was Prendergast sane at the time of the murder of Carter Harrison?" Twelve slips of paper were put into a hat, and when they were read every one of them had on it the word " yes." Next there was a ballot on the question, "Is Pren qualifications of any candidate nominated, and it would ordinarily seem to be presumptuous to offer to that body an expression of opinion which has not been asked. But I apprehend that if we should be silent after this report, and after knowing what it contains, that silence might be misinterpreted. It should not be said that we had acquiesced by silence in the declaration that Mr. Hornblower lacked any of the qualifications, and especially those of practice and experience, which are necessary to en-dergast now sane?" Again the twelve ballots read able one to perform properly the duties of a judge in the highest judicial tribunal in the land. We have been closely associated with him for many years. If any know what his qualifications are, we ought to know, and it seems to me suitable that we "yes." Then foreman Sutter put the question, "What shall be the punishment inflicted? Fourteen years or life in the penitentiary, or death?" Twelve more slips of paper were dropped into the hat, and the clerk read from each one the single word "death." Foreman Sutter then got up and stated the reasons which induced him to believe as he did, and he was followed by each juror in turn, who told of the points in the evidence which caused him to make up his mind as shown in the ballot. When the jurors were through, the clerk wrote out the verdict, which was signed, and they returned to the court room to make known the result of their deliberation. It was a new proceeding for a jury, and counsel know of no precedent for such a systematic and orderly manner of reaching a verdict. The entire proceedings lasted, as was told the morning following, exactly an hour. FATE OF A ONCE NOTED LAWYER. N Poughkeepsie, recently, Judge Guernsey comAmeri can lawyer, who for many years resided in London, to the Hudson River State Hospital for the Insane. Thirty years ago, when Judge Joseph F. Barnard was first elected to the Supreme Court bench, Van Wagnen was associated with him in the practice of law in Poughkeepsie. The judge turned over to him his practice, worth $10,000 a year, and all his interest in the office and fixtures. Four years later Mr. Van Wagnen moved to New York, where he met with much success, socially and financially, and was a welcome guest at the homes of the Astors and other society leaders of that day. He removed to London, where he married and had a son, who is now sixteen years old. In London Mr. Van Wagnen became widely known, and was much consulted as an authority on American law. He cut as much of a dash socially as he did in New York, and gained the reputation of being a lavish entertainer. Several years ago his wife died, and since then his mind has seemed to be affected. His practice dropped off, and as he had regularly spent his income, he was reduced to poverty. His friends made up a purse to send him to this country, but as none of his near relatives are living, nobody could be found to care for him, and he was sent to the hospital. He is suffering from paresis. His son has been adopted by distant relatives living near Poughkeepsie. POWER OF ELOQUENCE - HOW IT SAVED A TEXAN ON TRIAL FOR MURDER. PROMINENT lawyer of the Lone Star State, who recently visited New Orleans, related to a Picayune reporter the following story of a murder trial in his Texas home: The prisoner was on trial for his life. The evidence had all been heard. The State's attorney had just taken his seat after a most incisive statement of the evidence, wherein he had demonstrated the utter failure of the prisoner's theory of self-defense. The prisoner was a stranger in the county. The counsel for the prisoner was a stranger, too, known | only by reputation to the judge and the bar, and that reputation was one of great ability, perfect integrity and a marvelous knack of "snatching verdiots" each time by some new turn. This gaunt, yet graceful gray-headed man arose, seemingly without looking at the jury, though each man felt that he was under the power of that wide-open gray eye. After bowing to the judge and saying a few almost inaudible words of courtesy to his honor, he turned to the prisoner and said: "You must die, John-die by hanging. It will be for no fault of yours, by no fault of the judge or of his jury, or of the good people of the county; neither will it be any fault of the law. The law of Texas is all right, though you die innocent. The law, though its machinery may sometimes expose perjury, can't always prevent the false swearing of witnesses. Judges and juries have not the power, though they sometimes exercise the authority of Almighty God. They couldn't look down into the souls of those perjured witnesses and see the malice, hate and private purpose that colored and twisted all the facts. We can't help it now. You must die as you have lived, like a brave man. I don't need to tell you that. The woman who bore you, three months before you saw the light of heaven, carried in her arms from one of the bloodiest fields of the late war the bleeding, senseless form of your father, while shot and shell still shrieked and the groans of the dying filled the air. And your father, whose maimed body we laid to rest last week, was not matched in all this land. These trusted you, and their blood can betray no trust. The only message he sent you was: 'Tell him we believe in him.' We will lay you beside them. In a few days this old white head will be laid next to you. I'll not be ashamed to be buried soon beside you, John. You are so like the other John that I see the visions of happy boyhood while gazing into the same true eyes-confused with these is the pride I have taken in my friend's boy. While we lay these bodies in the churchyard over the mountain we'll appeal this case. We'll try it all over again up yonder." Then in a few of the boldest and grandest figures he sketched his idea of a trial in heaven, where, as he said: "In that glorious presence the false witness is dumb and the Inerrant Judge needs not the aid of counsel or of jurors." Then he pictured in low, vibrating tones the eagerness with which the mother, and the calm confidence with which the father awaited heaven's verdict, the quick rush, the entrancing, soulsatisfying embrace of both at the words "not guilty." Then, taking up both hands of the prisoner, he looked down in his face for a moment steadily, then, bending forward, with mother-like tenderness, kissed him all: "We can wait for that. So, good-bye, John, my twice on the forehead, saying, in a whisper audible to boy." Bowing respectfully again to the judge he took his seat, still holding one of the prisoner's hands. The district attorney, who through all this sat with his back half turned to the speaker and to the jury, nerVously and excitedly chewing his toothpick and crossing and recrossing his legs, began a reply which quickly ended after a good look at the jurors' faces in a stammering request to them to do their duty. The judge's charge was scattering. He seemed to scarcely know what he said. The jury did not hear him. Not the slightest incident occurred to break the spell. They went out, returned and in a very few moments the verdict of "not guilty" was recorded. What was the force that " worked" this result? "One should not know of what metal a bell was unless it were well beaten; quasi diceret, by good disputing the law shall be well known." Hankford, J., 11 Heu. IV. 37, cited by Coke on Littleton's Epilogus. Secretary's report. Treasurer's report. Report of the executive committee. Papers and addresses - "Is a Uniform System of Examination for Admission to the Bar Desirable?" by William A. Keener, dean of Columbia College Law School; Harry B. Hutchins, associate dean of Cornell University Law School; George Chase, dean of New York Law School; Austin Abbott, dean of Law School of University of New York; Abner C. Thomas, dean of Metropolis Law School; Leroy Parker, vice-dean of Buffalo Law School; Rt. Rev. William C. Doane, vice-chancellor University of New York. Appointment of committee on nomination of offi cers. Miscellaneous business. TUESDAY EVENING. General meeting at Assembly Chamber, at 8 P. M. Address, by Hon. Joseph N. Dolph, United States At the close of the meeting the members of the association will be the guests of Governor Flower at his annual legislative reception. WEDNESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. - CHECK-SIGNATURE-BURDEN OF PROOF. — The genuineness of the signature on a check in suit may be put in issue by a denial not made by the person of proof on that issue is on the person making the whose signature it purports to be, and the burden denial. Shaw v. Jacobs (Iowa), 56 N. W. Rep. 684. CRIMINAL PLEADING-DEMURRER TO INDICTMENT. -Where in an indictment for manslaughter against several defendants, it is sought to charge them jointly with culpable negligence in the performance of certain work in failing to adopt means necessary to avoid the happening of a disaster resulting in loss of life, all the facts necessary to show how the defendants were joined or united in obligation to make use of such means must be set forth in the indictment, in order that the court may determine whether there was a joint duty upon all the defendants alike, and whether the culpable negligence charged was of a nature to involve them all in its criminal consequences, as a joint commission of crime. Where such necessary averments are wanting, the indictment will be fatally defective, and such defect is available to the defendants either by At common council chamber, City Hall, at 10:30 demurrer or by motion in arrest. The allegation A. M. Report of committees. "The Constitutional Conventions of 1846 and 1867," by William P. Burr. "The Judiciary Article of the Constitution, with Reference to the Constitutional Convention of 1894." Papers and addresses by Walter S. Logan, first judicial district; William H. Robertson, second judicial district; Augustus Schoonmaker, third judicial district; Philip Keck, fourth judicial district; Louis Marshall, fifth judicial district; John B. Stanchfield, sixth judicial district; Martin W. Cooke, seventh judicial district; Norris Morey, eighth judicial district. General discussion of the Judiciary Article-ten minute addresses. that the defendants undertook and assumed the performance of the work, and were concerned in its performance, and that they had entire care, charge, control, management and supervision thereof, is not sufficient, being merely a general conclusion drawn by the pleader from precedent facts. The indictment, to justify the joint charge against them all, should clearly set forth the facts showing the relation of the defendants to the work, and what participation each of them had in directing, regulating and conducting the work. So also facts must be averred on the face of the indictment to show that there was, in legal contemplation, a common or like personal duty on the part of each of the defendants; and the facts averred must not only show the neglect of that duty, but to make the party guilty of it liable to a charge of felony, such neglect must have been personal, and the death that ensued must have been the immediate and direct result of that personal neglect of duty. Where the essential facts to show such state of the case are wanting the indictment will be defective, and a demurrer thereto must be sustained. Ainsworth v. United States (Ct. App., Dist. Colo.), 21 Wash. Law Rep. 806. EMBEZZLEMENT OF POSTAL FUNDS.--Under Supp. R. S. U. S., chap. 144, § 1, providing that persons embezzling any money of the United States shall be deemed guilty of a felony, a postmaster convicted of embezzling from the money-order funds is guilty of a felony, such money belonging to the United States, R. S., § 4045, providing that all such funds shall be deemed to be in the national treasury. United States v. Swan (N. Mex.), 34 Pac. Rep. 533. -- INJUNCTION AGAINST WASTE OF NATURAL GAS. A court of equity will not interfere by injunction to compel a land-owner who has sunk a gas well on his own premises, without malice or negligence, to stop the flow of gas therefrom, which has proven insufficient in quantity to enable him to utilize it, at the suit of adjoining owners, whose wells yield gas in sufficient quantities to enable them to utilize and market it, though defendant's well drains the common reservoir, and thus will ultimately reduce the flow of plaintiff's well. Hague v. Wheeler (Penn.), 27 Atl. Rep. 714. LIBEL-RUMORS.—An article describing a person as having such a mania for destruction that she scatters poison about the neighborhood for dogs, chickens and household pets, and alleging that she poisoned a cow, tried to take her own life and attempted the destruction of a family against whom she had a grudge, is libellous as tending to excite fear and abhorrence. Republican Pub. Co. v. Miner (Colo.), 34 Pac. Rep. 485. Sale—warrantY.-Where a person with knowledge of defects in material delivered under a contract containing specifications as to quality, receives and uses the same without giving notice of the defect, he cannot, in an action against him for the price, set up a counter-claim for damages for the defects. Berthold v. Seevers Manufacturing Co. (Iowa), 56 N. W. Rep. 669. TRIAL ADVISING JURY TO AGREE.-It was not error for the trial court to instruct the jury, after they had been out some twenty hours without agreeing upon a verdict, to the effect that if one or two of their numbers differed in their views of the evidence from the others, they should be thereby induced, although not required to surrender conscientious convictions, to doubt the correctness of their own judgments, and should be led to inquire whether they were not mistaken. Gibson v. Minneap olis, St. P. & S. S. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 56 N. W. Rep. 686. Correspondence. LETTER FROM HON. DAVID DUDLEY Field. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: The new rules of the High Court of Justice in England, which are to go into effect on the 1st of January, are of such interest that I think you will be glad to publish them in THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, and for that reason I inclose them to you. You will observe that in most cases they dispense Such radical changes with written pleadings. would make our old fogies tremble in their shoes. But the world does move. I hope that the incoming Legislature will take up and pass the proposed Code of Evidence, which has been so carefully revised and so often recommended by the State Bar Association. Also, that it will frame and pass a stringent law to forbid the assessment for political uses of candidates for judgeships. This evil, if not extinguished at its beginning, will grow, and eat out the life of the judiciary. DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. EAST GRINSTEAD, ENGLAND, Dec. 18, 1893. [We are much obliged to Mr. Field for kindly sending us the new rules to which he alludes, but they are too long to be reproduced in THE LAW JOURNAL. They would fill seven or eight pages of this paper. Mr. Field's wish as to legislative prohibition of political assessments on judiciary candidates has been anticipated by Mr. Sheffield, who has introduced in the Assembly a bill providing that a person who solicits a contribution from a judicial officer, or candidate for judicial office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction be punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, or by imprisonment for a term not less than six months, or both. The bill also provides that any judicial can didate who makes such a contribution within three months prior to his election or appointment to office shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not less than one year, and shall also forfeit his office. It is to be hoped that this bill will become a law.] HOWARD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: Will you kindly allow me to call the attention of liberal-minded persons, especially members of the bar, to the Law School of the Howard University of this city? This is an excellent institution. It has an able and learned faculty, and very intelligent and prom |