The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-11-26
CASES FROM THE Ia TEsTLIW REP RTs.

The question Of how much water pur-
chaser may reasonably expect to find mixed
with the gin which he buys has lately come be-
fore the Stipcndary Magistrate Of Stoke-upon-
Trent, the borough which is represented in
Parliament by DR.. Kcncaly. The defendant
sold pint Of low priced gin which. on analysis.
| proved to contain over forty-thrce ror cent ot
water. lie was prosecuted under the Sale OF
Food and Drugs act and was convicted. The
magistrate held that. although there is no recog-
nizcd standard OF alcoholic strength for gin, n
purchaser who asks for the best gin may we'll
believe that he will obtain what is known as
| proof spirit, or about that while II he wants n
low priced gin he will expect to receive an arti-
Gle not more than twenty or twenty-five under
proof. The sample in this case was forty three
under proof so that it was not in fact the article
which the purchaser demanded. as he must be
supposed to have asked for that which he was
reasonably entitled TO expect would be supplied
under the name Of gin. This decision has been
affirmed by the Queens Bench Division OF the
| High Court of Justice 1t defines the precise
extent TO which English publcans may safely
dilute one kind Of liquor.
suit brought by the United States to re-
cover the value Of largo quantity Of timber
cut on the public lands was recently tried in
the United States District Court for Minnesota.
| The defendant showed that he cut the timber
on land duly entered under the Homestead law.
but which he had not yet occupied for the five
years requisite to make 1t his absolute prop
crty. The court held that he might clear the
land and sell the timber. If he cut Il for pur-
poses Of cultivation. but II h.s only object in
| severng the wood was to sell It. without refer
| ence to improving the land, there should be n
verdict for the Government. There was evil
| dence tending to show that sale and traffic were
the only purposes which he had in view, and
| the jury must have believed this evidence for
| they found verdict against him. This caso
reminds the Chicago Legal Ners Of n Methodist
| conference which was held at an carly day in
| Illinois. minister who had lately come to
| the West and who still proudly wore n high
hat and n broadcloth coat. obtained the floor.
and thus addressed his associates: Il am
against stealing in every shape and therefore
move the adoption of the following resolution:
ResOlred. That. in the opinion of this confer
cncc. II IL just as sinful to steal Government
timber as any other kind Of property" Where
| upon a brother clergyman. clad in homespun.
rose hastily AMI responded: II is evident that
the brother who introduced this resolution ia a
newcomer, and docs not know the wants and
necessities Of this community. l move that
the resolution bo laid on the table" And 1t was
laid on the table accord ngly.
A statute Of Michigan requires all promissory
notes and other negotiable instruments given
in whole or part payment for the right to make.
use. or sell any patented invention to have
prominently and lcgibly written or printed
upon the face thereof the words. Given for
patent rights" Such notes are also declared
to be- subject to the same defcnces in the hands
Of any subsequent holder as may exist against
| the original holder. So far as patents are con-
| cerned, the statute attempts to ahrogate the
rule of the law merchant which protects bona
fde holders Of negotiable paper who have
acquired il for value and before maturity from
defcnces Of which they are ignorant. II i'm
| poses n condition upon notes given for patents
which Is not imposed upon notes given for any
other kind OF property This condition obvi-
ously tends to lessen the value Of the rights OF
| patonteos in Michigan. On this ground the
| Supreme Court Of that State has recently adj
Judged the statute 10 be Unconstitutional and
void The power TO grant patents and regulate
tho rights Of patentecs Is vested by the Consti.
tuition Of the United States in Congress. The
States cannot lawfully discriminate against
such rights by making their transfer from on
person to another more DIM cult, or subject
| greater burdens than the transfer % other
| similar property. Any lcei-ativc cnp 'tncni
| which would have this effect H. "A violation of
tho Federal Constitution. There are statutes
similar TO that Of Michigan in SOW ri other
| Western States. all Of when must he regarded
as equally unconstitutional.
A singular agreement. given by man IN hi.
wife. TO induce her to abandon suit for di
vorce which she had begun against him. is pub
lished in the american Lar Reri1c. IA follows
For value received day after AZ any time hccom,