The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-26
VOTES or LEaAL rHrNrs

for the Southern District OF the Indian Terri
tory. Like Judge Fem Of Connecticut, of whom
we spoke last week, Mr.. Eilgoro had seen Mill.
tary service before he read law, but 1t was in
the Confederate army instead Of on tho Union
side. 1t is to DO noted, however, that he OPP
posed the secession movement in Texas as long
as opposition was Of any avail. He first be-
camo prominent as q lawyer In the convention
which framed the present Constitution of Texas.
subsequently, as one OF tho Representatives OF
that State in Congress for four terms, he at
tracted much attention by reason OF his per
sistent objections to many popular measures.
In 1895 the United States Court in the Indian
Territory was rcorganiZed. Tho number Of
Judges was increased from one to three. The
Territory was divided into three judicial dis
tricts, tho Northern, Central, aud Southern,
and the President was authorized to appoint
new Judges for tho Northern and.Southern dis-
tricts. Representative Kilgore was thereupon
appointed by President Cleveland to be tho
Judge for the Southern district, which consists
OF the Chickasaw country, and in which the
principal place is Ardmoro, where no died.
Attorney General Hancock. In q well-rea-
soned opinion which was made public on Fri
day, has advised tho state Civil Service Com.
mission that the office of Chief OF Police in this
city may properly be allied without compelling
the officer to submit either to q competitive
examination or a pass examination. We do
not SEQ how the most ardent advocate Of civil
service reform can find just cause TO quarrel
with this conclusion. The constitutional pro-
visions In respect to appointments and promo
lions In the civil service clearly imply that there
are offices as to which examinations do not fur
nish a satisfactory or practicable test Of the high.
est fitness; and II seems quite clear that the office
OF Chief Of Police falls within that class. No
body, 30 far as we know, has yet proposed to
choose Brigadier.G encrals by means OF com
petltive examination, and, as tho Attorney
General points out, the Chief of Police in New
York Is in fact the commanding officer Of 5000
men.
The right Of a woman to resume her maiden
name upon obtaining a divorce has been the
subject OF several recent decisions to which we
have lately referred. An interesting question
Of a coKnate character relates to the right Of a
woman to retain her husbands name after her
husband has obtained a decree OF divorce
against her. In the case OF Blanc vs. Blanc, in
which the wife was the unsuccessful defendant,
the judgment dissolving the marriage expressly
forbade her from using the name OF her hus.
band thereafter, notwithstanding which she
called herself the Baroness Blanc. In a de.
cision handed down during the past week,
Judge Leslie W Russell Of the Supreme Court
holds that in so doing the defendant has rem.
dered herself liable to punishment for con-
tempt He s~ustains the jurisdiction OF the trial
court to incorporate the prohibition in the de-
cree OF divorce. and declares that the wife's
misconduct, which has resulted In the severance
Of the marital relation. likewise deprives her OF
any further right to bear her husbands name,
which she derived solely from the marriage
status. Mr.. Bishop. in his well-known treatise
on marriage and divorce. states the law to DO
that q dissolution for q cause occurring subse-
quent to the nuptials leaves the wife still enu-
tied to the husbands name. but the only case
which he cites on this point is one whore the
divorce was procured by the wife.
The Appellate Division Of the Supreme Court
in this city has recently passed upon an inter
esting question which had not previously been
authoritatively decided in New York. This
question is whether the private employment Of
q puffer by the owner of land at an auction sale
OF the property. who bids up the price in behalf
Of such owner, renders the sale void and relieves
q purchaser at the auction from the obligation
OF paying the price at which 1t was struck off
to him. In England. the common law courts
for u long time maintained what seems to be a
more equitable rule on this subject than the
Court Of Chancery; for they held that the sale
was absolutely invalidated and that the high.
est bidder could not DO compelled to per
form his contract II the owner had employed
buffers at all. In chancery. however, II was
held that the sale might stand II the puffer was
employed merely to protect the owners inter
ests and not to enhance the price Improperly,
Parliament finally settled tho conflict by q
statute which practically adopted the more
stringent rule Of the common law courts, and
this is the rule approved by the Appellate Di
vision In the case OF Bowman va. McClenahar
| In nm inafrlcfive npininn nv Nv JuRficA Rum
sey.
In the latest pamphlet number Of the Neu
Y~oraSupplement there is n report OF the decision
of the Appellate Division Of the Third Depart
ment ALBANY in the case of Stisser Va. tn,
New York Central and Hudson River Railroad
Company. The prevailing opinion is writer
by MIR. Justice Herrick. and 1t Is stated tina
all the members Of the court concurred will
him except Mr.. Justice Landon. Then follow
what purports to be q dissenting opinion b,
Justice Landon. 1t really Is a memorandum
which was evidently sent by that learned justice
to his associates, and was never intended to z
into the law reports at all. This is apparent from
the conclusion. which reads thus: Il believ
we agreed that II the ribbon was a barbed wiz
the judgment for the plaintiff should b
affirmed; otherwise not. l affirm
ance without opinion. II any of my brethre
think the Judgment should be reversed,
hope he. will write to that effect" Tho cas-
related to the maintenance of a wire fence, an
the view expressed by Justice Landon in hi
memorandum strikes us quite as favorabl
as the argument In the opinion OF the court, bu
1t Is not fair to the Justice to give permanenc
!, in the law reports TO u communication whic
was plainly not designed for publication.
In the case of the People vs.. Reavey III
Gcparal Term of the Surname Court here 4