The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-07-25
rorrs or 1EaAL Errxrs

Commonwealth. Tho committee delayed 90
ton for several years, In the expectation that a
constitutional convention would be held which
could deal moro satisfactorily with all qucs-
lions concerning the judiciary. The PROPOSE
ton to have such q convention, however, has
been voted Town by the people, and the COM
mittee has made q report prepared by Mr..
]. @. Parker. recommending changes which he
believes will secure speedier justice to It'll
giants, greater efficiency In the courts, and O ro-
duction of the expenditure in tho judicial
branch OF the State Government. It Is pro-
posed to provide better pay for the Judges than
thoy now receive, but to decrease tho number
OF Judges. Virginia now pays the Judges and
clerks Of her courts Of record and her prose-
cutting attorneys an aggregate Of S24s, 800 per
annum. The changes advocated by Mr.. Par
ker In his report would reduce those figures to
E143, 800. thus saving $105, 900 a year, and Civ,
ing the people, as he contends, a better service
With better paid officers.
Railway travellers will BIO interested in an
important decision recently made in Jefferson
county, In this State, by Mr.. Justice Scripture of
tho Supreme Court Mr.. James w. Corcoran
bough. q mileage ticket from the New York
Central and Hudson River Railroad Company
for go, which entitled him to travel 1000
miles on tho lines of that railroad. Tho COM
pany required him to sign q contract which
declared that the book was good only for pas
sage when presented to tho conductor with o
ticket received In exchange for coupons taken
from the book. Mr.. Corcoran arrived at q sta
| ton whore ho wished to take q train. observed
| that the station agent was not in his Office, but
| was out on tho platform, and boarded the cara
without having procured any passage ticket in
exchange for his mileage coupons. Tho con-
ductor refused to accept the coupons them
selves. and put Mr.. Corcoran of tho train. In
q suit to recover damages for the unlawful
election the passenger was successful. An act
Of the Legislature passed in 1895 requires
railroad companies operating limos moro than
100 miles long TO issue mileage books ell
titling tho holder to travel 1000 miles, for
which the corporation may charge not moro
than two cents q mile. Under this statute
Mr.. Corcoran had the right to travel upon pro-
sentinE his mileage book, without any other
ticket, unless he had made a valid contract
with the railroad which compelled him to pro-
cure such ticket. The court held that the
agreement which he signed was not such n con-
tract. because thore was no consideration for it.
That agreement declared that the book had
been sold for u reduced fare. but such was not
the fact. It was sold for the highest sum al
lowed by the act Of 1895.
The last pamphlet number Of the United
States Reports contains the opinion of the SUI
preme Court in tho case Of the tug J. p. Don.
aldson, which has excited q great deal OF inter-
est among admiralty lawyers. 1t involved a
novel question In the law Of general average, or
the rule of the maritime law that all parties
engaged in a common shipping enterprise shall
share a loss which has been incurred for the
teneft of all. The tug was on her way from
Buffalo, n. Y, to Bay City, Mich, towing two
berges, when a violent storm arose, and all three
vessels were driven toward IA lee shore. As n
last resort, In order to save his boat, the master
OF the tug cut the tow line, and was thus en-
abled to escape wreck, while both the barges
were driven ashore and destroyed. In n suit
against the tug, the owners OF the bargcs in
sisted that the owners Of the tug were bound to
share a part of the loss, inasmuch as all thrce
vessels had undertaken a single maritime ad-
venture in which two of them had been sacri-
feed In order to preserve the third. But the
Supreme Court holds that the law Of general av-
erago has no application to a contract OF towage,
but els confined TO those cases wherein a vol
untary sacrifice is made OF some portion OF the
ship or cargo for the benefit Of the residue
This was the view Of Mr.. Justice Brown, now Of
the Supreme Court, who tried the case in tho
first instance when he was United States Dis
trict Judge at Detroit.
Ab ~ y ocoAhat Va -
company to keep its station open only from =
o'clock in the morning to Z o'clock at night In n
village In which there are but fifty inhabitantsi
This question has just been answered in the
affirmative in the courts NJ Indiana at circuit
and upon appeal. A passenger had bought "A no
turn ticket, which he was required to have
stamped at such a station before 1t would be
receivable for his honeward trip. He neglected
to apply at the station for this purpose until
after z p. NJ, when the office had been closed
for the day, and he insisted that under these
circumstances the conductor was bound TO nc
cept his ticket unstampod, as 1t was unreal
sonable not to keep the station open longer.
The courts, however, were unanimously of tho
opinion that twelve hours a day afforded the
passenger an ample opportunity to present his
ticket, and tina the railroad could not be re,
uuired to keep its station ut such a village open
day and night.
A recent Massachusetts case CLARK vs.. Clark,
AZ Northeastern Reporter, 5lO) opens the door
very wide for the admission Of non-expert-
opinion evidence in reference to tho mental en-.
pacity of u person whose competency to exc
cute a will or deed Is in question. The suit was
brought to set aside q conveyance of.land made
by tho plaintiff, and her counsel sought to show
that ner mental condition at the time OF tho trial
differed but slightly from her mental condition
at the time the decd was.signcd. For this pur
pose the plaintiffs sister. who knew her init
mately, and had lived with her for two years
preceding the trial, was called as a witness and
was asked: please state whether your sister
the plaintiff, has failed or has not failed In hcI
mental capacity during the past five years
Tho question was excluded by tho trial Judge
and the defendant succeeded; but the Supreme
Court has unanimously ordered q new trial or
the ground that the question was proper and