The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-20

missioneIs OF Statutory and Code Revision.
They call It the Judiciary law, and say that
1t IL intended to be the FIRST chapter in a rcncr.
al re vision Of the Code OF Civil Procedure. Nov.
ertheless. as we understand their general note
which is pronxed to tho bill, It, takes out OF IN.
Code of Civil Procedure all the matters with
which the bill deals. These arc the consi,,u.
ton and organization of the several courts Of
the State. the functions of various officers In.
Guiding attorneys, stenographers. and court at.
tendants, the periods within which suits OF
different kinds must be commenced. the gen.
eral regulations concerning the attendance OF
witnesses, the various statutory rules OF cyl.
dence. the drawing and summoning OF jurors.
and the general provisions relating to the zee,
of. officers. Tho elimination OF these subjects,
from the present Code OF Civil Procedure" say
the Commissioners, will afford an opportunity
for q revision which shall relate exclusively ia
practice"
We SEQ no propriety In taking out OF the ex.
listing Code of Civil Procedure tho provisions
relative to compelling tho attendance and tesu.
mony OF witnesses or the general regulations
respecting evidence and the competency and
mode OF examination Of witnesses. II sesma
like making q change for tho merc sake Of
change. These subjects do not fall as natural.
ly or suitably under the title OF the proposed
statute, "the Judiciary law" as under the Code
Va SiNh AoSouuEo- hhiohB thc prov lSlOls 70
be thus transferred Is tho section which pre.
scribes when . party or person in interest can.
not be examined. For years this has been SEQ.
ton 800 Of the Code OF Civil Procedure. Scores
and probably hundreds Of decisions have been
made referring to IL by that number. Every
ono of these becomes moro difficult Of appl!ca.
ton II the section Is made, ~ tho revisers mean
to make It, section 361 Of the Judiciary law.
We regret also to observe that the work OF 70.
-tat- 49, .-
manner. even where It is not otherwise obteo.
tionable. Tho proposed law does make sub
stantial alterations In cases whore the notes OF
the Commissioners declare that it does not;
and It omits 10 make changes where they are
obviously needed. What sense 10 there, for OF.
ample, in providing in section n that the Ap-
pellate Division OF the Second Department may
have fvo court attendants and then proceed.
ing to declare in section 70 that o term Of tho
Appellate Division shan DO attended by not
moro than three attendants appointed by suoh
COURT This prohibition. II regarded, would
keep two Of the i've attendants constantly idle.
In the matter Of Edward o. Kimban, which
was decided By the Court Of Appeals Just before
tts February rooess, the case has been taken Sp
writ Of error to the Supreme Court of the United
States. The right 10 o review by that tribunal
grown ont Of the fact thai the decision denies
6AC NoAoAty An v v " = ulVOIC0 RTnNte0
In North Dakota. There was no doubt that
the divorce whom Granted was not operative In
New York. inasmuoh e. the North Dakota roc
ord allowed that 10 was granted BY default in
the absence Of the defendant, who did not put
In any appearance end was not served with pro.
cess IN that Stats. There WA an effort made
subsequently, 10 correct this 5ur,sdictional do.
fect By getting The dstsndant's appearance 70.
corded on the strength q o letter which he
Wrote 10 his vifos attorney N the North Dakota
suit, and the court tAare amended the juds.
mont Of divorce - a the data when It was orig.
finally rendered. % a. - rootte that tho defend
ant duly appeared. Surrogate Abbott Of Kings
county, however. found a. o fact that the do
PENDANT mover really appeared IN the North Da-
kota suit, and this oonofuion was sustained a.
matter Of faot BY ths Appellate Division, and
has now bean upheld % correct In law by tho
Court Of Avpeals- The opinion Il written by
Judge Haishh Chief Judge Parker alone dis
senttnG.
Thero a10 nob many oAso0 In tho law reports
sf this statsfdlattng 70 the admicsib1ity Of med.
ical works a. evidence. but the fsw which can bs
found are opposed to the competency of such
books. sxoept whom used foV purposes of the
oross-examinaion Of medical experts. In Fog
gott Va Fischer. recently decided By tho Appel
late Division Of the Supreme Court In Brooklyn,
~NeS 1eA SSSSoAon ~ oonsiuok
this subject. On the trial ono Of the questions
to DO determined was the nature of tho injury
received By the plaintiff. who claimed that 10
was OF o progressive character; and his counJ
sci was permitted to read from . work BIZ PROT!
GroeS Q statement In regard to tho serious 81
feota which often follow Q confusion Of the
nerves. Our attention In called to NO rule"
says Judge Bradley. which could permit the
Introduction of that evidence. The weight Of
authority on hat subject Ia to the affect that
books OF induottve science. within which are
standard medical works, are not admissible as
Affirmative evidence. Otherwise. as to those
which By the courts arc deemed works OF e1.
act science. The Northampton tables fall with.
In this class" There 10 an old case in tho Su.
perior Court, where the plaintiff sued for inju-
res toa horse, In which IL was hold that the well
known work called "Youatt on the Horse" was
erroneously received in evidence. and in q COM
paratiyely recant caaa the Gen.ra, Term a, ,ba