The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-08-07
VOTES OF Legal EVENTS.

trict. The district was organized by an act of
Congress passed In 1866. largely at the instance
Of the late Henry ]. Raymond. In order TO give
Charles l.. Benedict place on the Federal bench,
Benjamin d. Silliman was the first District At
torney, His Successors in tho Office have been
Benjamin T.. Tracy. Asa W. Tenney, Mark d.
WILDER, Jesse johnson. James l., Bennett, and
now Mr.. pcttlt-all Republicans except Mossrs.
WILDER and Bennett. who were appointed by
Mr.. Cleveland. Since Its, organization the dis
trict has had but three Judges, namely, Charles
l.. Benedict. now retired oh full pay under the
Federal statute Asa w. Tenncy, who lived only
n few weeks afterhis appointment by President
Mckinley, and Edward Is. Thomas. now on the
bench. We hear that Judge Thomas il taking
hold Of his work vigorously and disposlng Of it
in u manner which gives general satisfaction to
the bar.
Much interest has been excited in the legal
and medical professions in England by what
has come to be known as the Hypnotic viii
Case, which was recently tried In the Probate,
Divorce and Admiralty Division OF the High
Court, before Mr., Justice Gorell Barnes and u
jury. An old lady named Howard was tho
patient OF a well-known DIR, Kingsbury, q
physician of Blackpool. and when she came to
make her will she left him her residuary estate.
valued ut upward OF Sl50.000. The validity
of the will was attacked by Mrs. Towards
surviving relatives on the ground that the
residuary clause was the result OF I'M
duo influence exerted upon her by DR..
Kingsbury: and it was contended that
this influence was exercised by means OF
hypnotism, the doctor being an experienced
hypnotist, who had demonstrated his powers
as such at gatherings of medical men where
the subject was under discussion. He did not
deny that no had attempted to hypnotize the
old lady. On the contrary, he expressly testi-
fed that he had tried hypnotsm upon her on
twenty-five different occasions, but in every
instance failed to produce any effect. He ut
terly denied any effort to influence her In dis
posing of her property, however, and the jury
must have believed him., for they promptly sus-
tanned the will after o six days trial.
The Supreme judicial Court OF Massachusetts
has just made a decision in a negligence case
which involves a pretty stringent application OF
tho doctrine that an employee assumes tho
known risks Of his employment. The plaintiff
was u lad employed to ride running horses for
the defendant. While a colt was being saddled
for him to ride he noticed n bad place in the
stirrup strap, and told the defendants foreman
that it did not look right. Tn foreman there
upon took the strap from the boy. put it on the
floor and pulled it up, and then declared that 1t
was strong enough to hold the plaintiff and had
CIV ~ AiNiA hihAA wa AN " - " SAbs AHo
strap broke and the plaintiff was injured
but a majority of the Judges held that he could
not recover damages, because he assumed the
risk Of using the stirrup strap Just as it was.
In this conclusion the Court seems to have
been largely Influenced by the lads own testi-
mony TO the effect that he believed the strar
was strong enough after the foreman had
tested 1t and told him so. Mr.. Justice Knowl-
ton, however. in q strong dissenting opinion,
;r,;ak. thak Aha nNilannA ahNu-a1 chat ha liI
not understand or fully appreciate the risk. and
that the jury ought to have been allowed to
pass upon the question.
In 1885 the Superior Court OF this city de-
cided that the city Of New York was not re.
sponsible in law for the negligence Of the Fire
Department resulting in the fall of q fire tower
which was being tested at the Battery. and the
consequent death of a b%ystander who was
watching the proceedings. The tower had moi
actually become the property of tho Fire De.
partment at the time. but was in experiments
use. with a view to its acquisition. This fact
the court held. did not affect the question
of liability. A similar case has recently
been decided the same way by the Supreme
Court of Ohio. The Fire Department Of the
city Of Columbus. In that State. undertook {
practice drill in the street with a fire tower
which was so negligently managed that 1t fel
and killed a gentleman who was sitting near b!
in his carriage, and was himself guilty OF no faul
or negligence whatever, The Court holds tina
his widow cannot maintain a suit against tn,
city to recover damages for his death. the pre-
vaillng rule throughout the Union being that
municipal corporation Is not liable for injuries
due to the negligent acts OF members OF its Fir
| Department, whether when engaged In the ex
tinguishment OF fires or In other duties.
Among the decisions recently made by tn
Appellate Division OF the Supreme Court of tn
a Third Department Sitting at Albany is one II
q negligence case in which the facts are some
l what out OF the common run. The defendant
maintained a powder house within the limits G
s the city of Kingston in which from forty to ft
D kegs OF powder were usually kept stored. TIL
plaintiff lived with her husband in adwellinu
house 800 or 400 feet distant. 1t had been erect
= ed before the powder house was built. but wa
not occupied by the plaintiff until afterwarC
The powder house was blown up dur
ing a thunder storm. and under circum
: stances which Indicated that 1t ha
been struck by lightning. Only two question
were left TO the jury: first. Whether the main
tenance OF a powder house in such a place wa
or was not a nuisance; and, secondly, Wha
amount Of damage was suffered by the plain
tiff? The trial Judge told them that the fa(
that the magazine was exploded by liRhtnin
n constituted no defence. II they found that tn
o powder house was a nuisance placed where
was. There was a verdict Of 5000 for the plain
tin. which the Appellate Division has affirmed
holding that the instruction to the Jury In RI
% gard to the agency OF tho lightning was correc
d question OF considerable practical impo
lance to the volunteer fire companies In tn
l. rural portions of the Greater New York wa
passed upon In u decision handed down O
Thursday by Mr.. Justice Slower Of Amsterdam
n n. Y. who has been sitting in the supren
Court In Brooklyn during the latter part OF Jul
l. The charter provides that the volunteer fl
companies now existing In the borough
OF Queens and Richmond shall continu
10 to discharge the duties which they wei
10 organized to perform until tho pa
70 Fire Department OF the greater city ca