New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-12
BENCH AND BAR.
GATHERED AMONG LAWYERS AND IN
THE COURTS.

cases Some of the trial and special terms were
not occupied as busily as the state OF the oa'e''
demands Several Of the courts adJourheu pe'oe
or 3 O'Clock in the afternoon on some OF the coi
DAYS and valuable time thus lost. Inc speciai
terms for ntgatcd motions and ex-parte business
were for the part busy occupied 'us''oe
Smyth sat in Part II, this being his first experience
In any other than trial court. That branch OF '"e
court was it always must be. one OF the pus'f''
and most combining Of the Supreme Court Lawyers
frequently show much carelessness III urd"iie
orders and the correction of their errors Is one OF
the most difficult parts of the judges work. some
times an order rs drawn as returnabe al certain
date and is not presented until that time mas
passed. Again. the rectng parts oil an ofder are are
incomplete or erroneous, and al o'ner e'r,s I
Some Judges and back orders showing even !he
s sfGr make me- correc6ns Snsc rather than
to put lawyers 10 the trouble ana delay ol ula";is
new papers The and attention required at TINS
branch of the Special Term render the work there
exceedingly Glficult.
The Court Of Appeals after it's Easter recess rem
dered many decisions. The one which excited the
principal public attention was that in the Adeiphi
Club case. defining the rights of clubs In serving
liquors TO their members. The decision OF the court
was founded mainly on two principles, one OF when
has no application to the Raines law and the other
which may be applied TO IT. One reason for holding
that the club was liable to penalty for violation
OF the Excise law was that no provision was maze
for licensing such places. Under the Raines act
there Is no saloonkeeper license ana the generai
words providing for liquor tax would propaDiy n
was served. The other reason for holding the cub
law. and may exempt clubs from It's penalties. The
Court holds that The distribution OF liquors pur-
chased by club among It's members is not a ealc
OF liquors. II. under the provision Of the Ranes
bill. 1t is held that the liquors SO distributed are
neither sold nor given away clubs may be free from
the necessity OF taking out license under the new
law There are however. so many difficulties in APP
litigation Will be necessary before determining
whether the sale Of liquor at clubs Is or Is not
violation of the liquor tax law
Some OF the other Court of Appeals cases of the
week of interest The dispute begun several
years ago between the Wormser brothers and John
Nicholas Brown over the building OF a bay window
in Fifth-ave.. Sixty -ffth-st. was nj last
tied by decision OF the highest OF the State
The judgment OF the General Term Is affirmed.
The General Term judges held that the building Of
a bay window next door TO residence did not In
erfere with the light and air although 1t might In
terfere with the view from the windows. No spe-
cial damage suffered. and II held that
Injunction could not be issued to restrain the build
ing or the window. In the case Of Hogan against
the Manhattan Railway, TWO interesting points in
negligence cases were decided. II held that
the fact that an iron bar dropped from the elevated
railway structure and injured a person passing be
low was in Itself presumptive evidence OF neg
Ngcnce. that IL not necessary to show by
other evidence that the workman employed by the
other principle affirmed was the right OF judge.
where the plaintiff in negligence action had made
out case OF prcsumptiVe negligence and 10 EVIL
dence offered by the defendant. to direct YER
dict for the pldIntln and leave only the question
facts involved was that Of the Albany County Saw
ings Bank against McCarty. In which the validity
It shown by the evidence that the signature
not in the handwriting of the person who pur
the Acknowledgement was not certain that the
woman whom he saw was the one who should have
that she was I'm another part OF the State when the
acknowledgment was taken. The Judgment Of tho
ltts hl ole
In the OF Hines against the NcW-York Central
and Hudson River Railroad Company. H. was held
that the railroad company responsible FOR an
injury TO n brakeman caused 10y the fact that tell
tale out OF order. that warning
given OF the approach TO 4 bridge.
The United States Cour, Of Appeals has adopted
method OF changing its rules which will be pop
ular with members OF the bar Some changes in
the rules are proposed by the court and opinions
and suggestions OF amendments by members % the
par are asked loF. Iis mrthoI OF lubl,iy inviting
the assistance o. the bar in tho making of rules VIII
qucn,iy 10 valuable suggestions. Mos, OF the
changes refer to calendar practice and the printing
OF the record and briefs.
The friends OF an able and experienced member
OF the bar. belonging TO one Of tho bestknown
firms in the city. continue TO express regret that
he has recently advertised FOR certain class o'
His firm has been successful AMI prosperous. and
violation his part o, the unwriien laws
ful Of their reputation has before been noted Tho
advertisement continues TO appear. although the
lawyer must by this time be aware % the regret
with which his action Is looked upon by his friends
The novel and unpopular method 81 conducting
the Law Institute Library continues In spite OF the
disapproval OF many OF the members OF the Tnsi-
tue and It's friends. Newspaper writer's accredited
visitors from out OF town. wcll-known clerks OF
members and others who have. under reasonable
restrictions. been allowed TO have to the
rooms. excluded Instead o. the courteous
nj -han deI mo in
ia now the strct,st and most technical enforce
ment OF rules. which are either new or have long
been obsolete. An attendant scans every visitor
and demands an exhibition 81 authority, and II a
hOrization or II II Is dated day or two too late.
he is not allowed to enter the closely guarded pre-
more apparent when II Is remembered that tho
library only exists through the lbcrality 81 the
th ~ ~ ho ,eouirnl Sor az rinvcni.nt and ar
cessiblc quarters IN another place. The officers 81
the library at this very time requesting adj
dltiona room in the already oycrcrowdcl Federal
Courthouse. They give In return for the remark
~ Tho iihrarv 10 certain Federal Officials Az most
OF the Judges write their opinions away from the
Courthouse. the OF the library by tho officials
Judges wished a book not included in the libraries
which are furnished to the different courts no
should send out purchase It. The United state.
Government by the expenditure Of one-quarter OF
the amount given away In rent 10 the library
could easily meet the needs OF the judges. There
has always been a question whether the library
has any right at all IN the building under the
grant by the city government. which was for a
building 10 be used only for postofice and court
purposes Many United States Commissioners can-
NOT now obtain Offices In the building. and the
posofIicc accommodations are too greatly limited
The granting OF so large space In the oysrcrow1ri
building has been due largely to goodwill. and thu,
past management OF the lbrrry has strengthened
| Ia hold on popular favor. The present endoayor
| TO make an exclusive and secret library room
serves to render the Institute unpopular with law
| vers who are not members. and 10 discourage any
| growth I'm the future. II the present policy con-
tinues there Will be many more Such aivery d,,
| naents ms that which appeared last week In THE
| law Journal" containing the significant announce
| ment "Share of stock In Law Institute for sale
| cheap"
"Tha American Law Review draws attention to
| that which appears to be violation by some one