The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-07-18
rorrs Or nEaAG ryrxrs.

tion Of the constitutionality Of the frat section
OF tho act of 1897 still open and undecided. al
though the Judge ntimates that he regards &c
as valid. 1t IA this section which declares IL
and void every contract. agreement, ar
ranpement. or combination vvberehv n mo-
nopoly in the manufacture. production. or sale
in this State of any article or commodity of
common use IN or may be created. established.
or maintained. or whereby competition In this
State in the supply or price of nny such article
or commodity IA or NAV he restrained mr. pre-
ventodn Tho efcot NJ N trade combination
rather than its purpose IN thus made tho tcst
Of its lcpnlity: and in tbia resneot tho act NJ
1907 difYera radically from nrevIous Now York
lerislation on the subject, The announcement
comes from Albany that tho Govornor,s leUol
adviser. Mr.. Charles Y. Lincoln. disapproyod
some OF the provisions which have been con-
demned as unconstitutional by Judge Chester.
Those relate wholly to the sections prescribing
the method OF procedure whereby the Attorney
General may examine witnesses to ascertain
whether tho law has been violated or not.
r. ,..,,,. o~or,ino ,.r,.u.-a a.
- - rn,s,,- nao.as .@."tN g.
49,. as. In, -. -. ~" -
A.. a. a. r.s,.na tn En",,.S ni.a.oa
eno part - - 49, SH ~
not VI Ao'', NJ n.ent~ 49,. sno Yu
A A. H-N- 49, H. z-,..A .lNa 49,.
oeuu W .o oa.a'"uea ~ ~ 49, . 49,. 80
. .uuuio epN.n ~ sIHSN
= oeiu' u JUN ". 90 Io,n
-.
~ Co.,. :. ~ -
s.ou Ill nn' -,,. Iaah,n. S !. -
o."n ovtpo w" n.~sLN. 100 ~
b Sup" ALREADY re %1' procured a. an absolute - divorce wore in
~. Enolsh divoroe court Int tho validity NJ
Inc Inensn aisoloo W. ~ u N v.u y.
htC nRNTAA wn0 OnGAylOn0u OH T0n ynAN
he was q domiciled Irishman. over whom that
.oui' " .uaainn nnon .ho RECOMMENDATIONS
I, ~. - cr,arn.nor Tho osta bIishod III. q,
~. Uouso Ia 70 noss n divorc, hin r~e,.tinr IN
Ir,.,, narti,s ,vh.r. tho nroof would i,stIfx a
800 - la n Eng,ond IN grantno a dscrn. S,a.
.o,r,na ~. m.rr,aa.
There continues TO DO serious opposition In
England to the BILL TO reform the law OF crimi-
nal evidence 30 as 10 permit oeienoants In crim-
1nal cases 10 test1y In tner own oehan; ana Q
lengthy correspondence on Inc suolect pro ane
con. has appeared In inc LONDON 1tmcs' Inc
letters are largely deVoted 10 consideration
or tho details OF the proposed STATUTE, put In
regard to the main question: tno experience OF
the courts In this country ought to DO con-
elusive, to say nothing OF that OF the courts In
several OF the colonies OF treat Britain. Al
Aiooc NV NNSphAo s-o SANAe '""s s"o
privilege OF teslfying TENDS 10. inc protection
of the innocent and the conviction Of the guilty,
There has been much difference Of oninion In
England as to tho extent to which a cross-e1-
animation of the prisoner should DO allowed.
=. a. - Ch,.t I,s,ioo Rr.sou go. .
free cr-ossIexamination as to ANYTHING affect
ing the credibility Of the defendant, Just as in
me case OF any otner %ithess. snen is inc pea J,
States Of the Union to let prisoners speak for
themselves from the witness stand.
Anu po"e.o mp
. y -
tnot va y ~ 49, a
aso " ~ 80" y,
Appoei ~ nns,m ~ n"o ny
poaiou ~ .mo -
o"hofs " ,""s June 80 ueu ~
II p.Na- -
" u guy 40, pioou.u |" up po.oe ut
.he pe.men. .n'o o n,:"..s..
.nvs ~. go. TN nIa;nir ,hop nnnIi.s
e. .aA ~. - ,s.iaa Be-. ~, 80 IL. eamnn,,,ua
to Mr. Justice bruce Tor an order competing
the defendants to produce for his inspection
the original manuscript containing the defama'
tory matter ana inc 1uoge srahteo INC apph'
cation. Upon the appeal tho order was 70
'etSeu- IL Hppeno'o oouf o"'u Nv
not 10 oroer inc aeienaaht III an ac.oh o iioe'
&c reveai II h"ho u u pei'on WV saVen
tIN, Tbn iUaecs would not decide ttbot n
could never DO done; but, If it existed. it was q
discretionary power not 70 DO used unless there
~ mef fSi spe nj rticnIor csse "DA . "0to n'ne
-
An amusing colloquy occurred between Col
Mitchell and the Master of the Rolls the Other
day, when the case Of Mitchell against Knol
came on to DO heard in the Court Of Appeal
Col. Mitchell, who Is the plaintiff and proposed
to argue his appeal In person, said that he OBJ
jected to ono of the Judges. The Master Of tn,
Rolls inquired which one. Col. Mitchell sale
he objected to the learned Master Of the Rolls
uaughter.l That Judge had been pleased on
former occasion to treat him in what the Col
onel considered an unjudicial manner. II,
had commented upon the appearance of tn,
Colonel in court in his uniform, and had sale
that he was shocked. Tho Colonel did no
want to shock the Master. Of the Rolls or any
other Judge. uaughter.l what did I sey q
TO your uniformi' asked tho Master of tn,
Rolls. "You said to me-" responded tho Col
onel, "'Why do you como In uniformf Do yol