New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-09
FROM BENCH AND BAR.
GATHERED FROM LAWYERS AND AMONG
THE COURTS


THE COURTS
Tho two decisions of the week by the Court OF
Appeals of the greatest interest 10 lawyers r"-
versei or modified judgments by the General Term.
In the of Saunders against the New-fork
Central Railroad Company several puzzng ques-
lions to riparian ownership arose The railroad
company bought many years strip Of land
under the water Yonkers. and laid its
tracks over the land Some Of the land east Of
the tracks covered by water until within Il
few years when /. has been filled In. Tracks have
recently been laid on part OF the flled-in ground
under new rights acquired 10y the company Those
who represented the original owner OF the whole
tract laid claim To- the land under water west of
the tracks and TO the made land cast of the Original
lines of track. The Supreme Court sustained IN"
rights of the original owner. but the Court OF Ap-
pea!s has modified me Judgment SO ,nt 'he , r"i
Sprague against Cochran reversed the ''encrai
Term JHdgment IN an acton To W h o~"rJ
by the mortGar was not described III the in+trn,,
held that Their might bc a foreclosure. The Gen
erl Term hell that the mortgage must first he re-
the foreclosure could not be had The court Of Ap-
pcals took different view of III. case.
Even the Judges have been brought into new
public notice by the upheaval in political affairs
The strong rebuke by Justice lngraham seems 10
have aroused to unusual degree the tenn
per OF the Governor but Judge lngrahams care
funeSS for the Importantly o. any IHNfN'~''-
ton by a Grand Jury in h court met pubic al-
proba ton Two OF the Judges OF the Court Of Gen
eral Sessions appeared In the old courtroom III
the brownstone building but instead of taking in'H
places o. = bench. they occupied In turn the
witness chair. and We're examined and cToss-eN-
amined instead f being themselves questoners-
They testified as to the conduct OF the nS' p,
Attorney dsposng OF Che criminal cases. biS-
court in wien he had practised for 50 many
years. hut at this time he was not the prosecute
PENDANT in order TO answer charges against him
sell % w 2ar h h1e benz ismS lar fsG"S S '
of the public service. but In tine "hcn puhnc
opinion is aroused on the necessity OF srcai"rr
faithfuness TO duty among officials me ludgrs ain
court cannot bu; be inlrec'N ntons"i me n,br
business IS carried on
An elderly LAWYER End his younger opponent ap-
neared few days ago before a tnited states CIR
cult Judge to argue disputed oo'ht. ~"
Younger man before tho case was called 0huck''n
| TO himself and told his opponent that n" was
sure TO succeed as he had found the case IN
which the circuit Judge himself had decided
similar point In favor OF the principle ior whch ne
contending when me Ma, ar;n r,r shorty AZ
tcrward referred 10 case In the niiei states ~
66r@n1 f,y"rshl to his ,leW of the case Yes
said the jpdss r tnsr INV decision. to which
your opponent referred shall have TO .Se"" hat
il Is we'll to be sure the opinion which YOU
depend has not been re'H'sedd % ,oo srest CON
I
ndence.
The recent bursting OF bomb In ore OF the
| large English court buildings seems 10 have weak
! ened the OF those who attend IN" Sessions
| Of the courts In that country. Al me law courts
| great care Is now shown in the admission o.
| strangers The officers frequently request those
ubo enter the building explain their bust
moss and other officers follow those whom they
see in the corridors with careful scrutiny. lew
| davs ago while the hearing OF divorce ac'1n
ana IN" sdIeiN d. Wen ~ NV
body Of the court Was hllcd MIN aun.u.1dSi a ,nts
| siles rushing through the air was heard from IN"
pp.sr P9 965 Of }be the Sod b"i os Of the oes
| and lawyers remained IN their pace@ pn' o. w.
imry.hox and the witness su idcnly diaappear"d
| rom his place. \ cool headed attendant ihaiy
| d,srovered that the noise was caused D! M
escape Of steam from one 0, he pipes used i re
heating. and the business o. 'he 'o"'' wac "
sumed.
Tho relations o. master and frequently
discussed in actions FOR damages and several dec-
s,ore ~ into-as, have been given within a lew
weeks The Massa :husetts Supreme court haS ~
cijoi that the owner OF a colt Is not reSpoh'''' IL"
the action Of his cmploye who inVtcu SA''ca'''''
boy TO ride on the colt while leading II from "''''
| lnp trough TO IT, 4ta. The cold KICKED the boy ana
.or,,,. ,ni,,ro, him II was held that tho employ"
was no, acting within the scope % his employment
and that the master was not responsive TOT '"c '
Jury 4 man employed in repairing hre-a''"S wa
injured h, the explosion OF cartridge In one 81 the
x.llV
~ his duty to work on loaded revolvers b' ne was
| IN the habit OF passing them to his employer VINO
| tested them and VINO had often assured 'ne "o,"
man that he would leave no uneXpio1fu '''"''s
| in the reviewers. The employer after ''a'"b INV
| 90 ,be revovers on one occasion handed IL pack 10
| III enp;cye saying that II did not WORN nm
| ,vbus an endeavor was being made to repd" "'
| defect an UNEMPLOYED cartridge whlon nhu Thn an
In Of the chambers Wa ms Iec-tcd ma, it is
| nreIne Court Of Massachusetts n"s ',,'n, had
oueston for the jury whether me 30 '' ,.oi,ar
been himself negligent IN no, H1a noyr that no
| in splic of the assurance 81 IN ~ remain
| ,neynlodei cartridge would De , W .th,,ea,,s
any OF ,hg 5fvG aSent the me
brakeman had frequently boosted 81 nS ni,rv
kfep 9 however suffer injury while at work IN me
YARD OF tnf rt the Massachusetts supreme Court
decides that ne entitled to nav Luz he neil
| gence OF the company in allowing u''e''N' or
| paratus In the yd'"9'
| ..,ons arising from alleged negligence are ofteh
| ,,nded on peculiar facts single pamphie' mum
| her of recent opinions Of the courts coh'a''S ,s
| I'm which a mill owner was held respohsp'' 'o' u'''
| gc n an owner OF adjoining land from the '''' VI
| hto,,ev after a severe gale II was hed 'ia' u''-
| lose the fan OF the chimney was the ies"'' - nv
| hi, accident or was caused by the wrongful "''9
| of other persons the miowner might oe "'''
snonsble In all Indiana case. In the SAM r""'
inlet II was shown that horse was ''' ,L
vine fence adjoining the pastures. IL ""S "' 49,,
| oor,nlaint was sufficient which charge" INA '''
enc. nosts were too far apart 10 suppD's 'i tn
.ires 50 that they sagged In such mann, ,res and
,,,o. horses 10 attempt 10 cross tHe WIZ r.h
NJ lead them 10 certain injury, wohIaidd ras
tIi ns ,Iding in n buggy driven by her nuspa"u .L
Was iiua,.h1 attompijng TO cross railroad rdck
T. was held that the negligence OF me NJ ,bs Vie
"yere negligent could not he imputed 10 tns
ne h uas riding With him. The railroad coiiprihns
~as held 10 negligent In encroachImss , bP and in
so as greatly reduce It's "iuth
nuin9 distractions in the roadway SO as Ia N
o, nerson driving a horse from turning as,ae -,
snd n approaching train The driver Wa MY 'is,en
az he negligent when he stopped 70 loon nrocneded
Ifcta pCp
w o." refully az ne could. considering ms is"o'A
81 the highway on which he was df""s'