The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-04-30
NOTES FROM THE LAW COURTS.

and the action was tried a short time ago in the
Common Pleas Division OF the High Court OF
Justice. Tho trial was remarkable for tho con-
nict Of medical testimony which the case pre-
scented. The witnesses for the plaintiff were
two highly respectable physicians. who swore
that his injuries were clearly due to mechanical
accident and were irrcmcdable In their nature.
On tho other hand. the defendants produced two
equally reputable medical men-onc OF whom
belongs to the Kings College Hospital-who tes-
titled that the plaintiffs injuries were really
caused by brain disease and not by violence at
all. and that he might wholly recover in year.
The jury. however. were satisfied that the sack
OF oats did tho mischief. and they awarded
Sc $50 damages to the schoolmaster.
The managers OF some English theatres
object to bonncts at the play. In various parts
of the Standard Theatre. Shoreditch. are hung
signs bearing tho words mo bonncts admit
ted" A cloak room Ia provided. whore ladies
are required to deposit their bonnets during the
performance. and to pay q small fee for having
them taken care Of. A lover Of liberty who had
secured three seats at this theatre made up his
mind that the bonnet regulation was unreason-
able and illegal. and he determined to disre-
gard 1t. Accordingly. he would not permit the
two ladies who accompanied him to deliver up
their hats. and tho proprietor would not allow
them to 20 TO their secured seats with their hats
on. The ladies then took of the offending bon
nets. but insisted upon the right to carry them
to their seats. This was denied and admission
was absolutely refused. except upon the deposit
OF the bonnets but the price he had paid for
the tickets WINS offered to tho gentleman. He
would not take II. and loft the theatre. A day
or two afterward no sued the proprietor In the
County Court for breach Of contract. laying his
damages at one pound sterling. The Judge
however. decided in favor OF the proprietor
holding that the requirement was reasonable,
and one which he had a right to enforce. This
decision seems open to serious question. In
these days Of tall millinery the regulation pro-
hibting tho wearing of bonncts in theatres may
be proper enough. but why seek TO deprive the
ladies of the custody OF their hats ?
A tendency on the part OF courts to indulge
in poctical quotation Ia apparent from recent
American reports. The Supreme Court of North
Carolina was lately called upon to construc the
law OF that State which exempts homesteads
from sale under execution or other final pro-
cess. 1t was contended that all subsequently
acquired property bought with the income
from the homestead was equally exempt.
To this the Court said: II is asked why
should not these acquisitions belong 10 him
thc owner of the homestead as the natural
fruit and product of the exempted prop
erty? The answer is. they do. undoubtedly.
No ono disputes that proposition; on the
contrary. it Is the very proposition we affirm.
All such property does belong TO him. absolute
ly; and with it he may buy and furnish fine
houses. have his carriage and horses. and sup
ply his table with the costliest Injuries But
when he refuses to pay his butcher. the latter
might we'll exclaim.
Upon what meat doth this our Cesar feed,
That he has grown 50 greatr
There was much less effort to bring in the
verse In the case Of Muller agt McKesson. de-
cilcd by the Supreme Court OF this State. in
Brooklyn. last year. whore Mr.. Justice Dyk-
man. speaking Of domesticated animals. said:
Their natures are not fcrocious on the con-
trary frroeity is the exception 10 their general
habits and disposition. which ARE generally
kind and conndina. and not uncommonly even
ailectionatc. obedient. and patient
The OK tolls through the iurrow,
obcdirnt O. the goad.
v rlSd, WIN . MI MNsa near ioaaa.,.,tol
ii, macy whistle hears.
10 he load ca.ils shears
This WINS in a case where according 10 the
language Of the same judge. the plaintiff sued
To recover damages for having boon b,tnn by d
| dog on his postcror. on his arm. and ON his
| ear
Tho Common SERGEANT of tho city of Lon
! don is an officer who exercises Judicial ana
magistrral functions Of considerable impor-
| tdn'c forwhich he receives % salary amounting
/ 10 about twelve thousand dollars a year. lie Is
| elc'tcd boy the Common Council. Since 1857 th,
office Inns been held hy SIR Thomas Chambers
/ q. c., who was recently ch, sen Recorder Of Lon
| don in place OF Mr. Russell Quincy resigned
! His promotion made it necessary 10 elect new
! Common sergeant. and many candidat"s pre-
scented themselves including six members %
! Parliament rho most prominent of these wa,
the Hon. Robert Bourkc. VI. =. Under Srrrrtar,
! for Foreign Affairs. hut he was defeated hy Mr.
W. r. Clcnrlry. NJ. T.. for Stafford. Il man whom
/ the Spectator describes MS having no particular
legal standing. and as famous for roaring Tor,
speeches. According to the London Times. Mr.
Rourkc recently presented an uupopulnr Nom
hcr If the Common Council ut court. t. III,
Queen. and his drfont is attributed wholly
that fact The nnnoun cement of this member
vote for Mr.. Bourke was dcrisively chcnrod
We believe that he is a tailor. and the uroprict,