The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-12-31
NOTES or LEoAL EVENTS.

perlor Court Judges who receive $1,000 q year
each, and the total expenditure In the main
tenance OF tho courts there Ia stated TO be from
SOOO.0O0 to 100000 year. OF which $780,
900 Is on account OF litigation In civil cases
One journal coolly proposes to establish n fee
system whereby the cost Of trying civil cases
would DO borne exclusively by the litgants
and not be charge upon the tax
payers at all. This system OF making tho
civil courts self-sustalnine Il advocated
on the ground that II would discourage
sutors and reduce the volume OF lti-
CATION and for the same reason the suggestion
Is made that the expenses OF taking an appeal
ought to be increased so as to diminish the
business OF the Appellate tribunals I'VE will
sell to no man." says Magma Charta, we will
not deny to any man either justice or right"
This declaration was not confined to tho
administration Of the criminal law ; and its
snrit would hardly be observed by Lecis-
the assertion OF their legal rights by imposing
heavy feos as q condition OF getting into court.
We have received from Mr.. Louis d Hart,
Clerk OF the surrogate's Court in Erie county.
| an interesting letter concerning tho proposed
SurroRate's Code. which Is to be presented for
adoption to the Legislature OF 1900 by the
| Commissioners OF Statutory and Code EcvlsJon.
He does not approve the proposed plan OF send
| ing probate cases into the Supreme Court for
| trial by jury. but thinks that the Jury trial
should be had In the surroGate's Court before
| tho Surrogate himself. A bill embodying this
| idoa was prepared two years ago by Surrogate
Marcus OF Erie county. and was passed by tho
| Assembly last year without dissenting vote.
| but failed in the Senate. There is good deal
| NJ force in the suggestion that the Surrogate
would be better qualified than u comm on law
| Judge TO preside over the Jury trial OF n con-
tested will case. inasmuch as he is or ought to
| be a specialist In probate law Surrogate
| Marcus. however would still permit two trials
o. contested will cases. under certain condI-
| lions. as he favors continuing In force the
| existing provisions Of the cede allowing an APP
| plication for the revocation OF probate to bo
made within ono year Mr.. Harris argument on
this point is that considerable timo is needed
| In many instances 10 enable purity or his at
exist Tor a contest or not. and that i would be
! unjust to forerloaN such u marty because he
coulI not determine tins question and present
MS objections upon the original application to
/ prove the Will.
In the Matter OF Lyman. which was decided
by the Court o Appeals on the Sd Of October
| last. tho State Commissioner OF Excise at
! tempted to procure n revocation Of tho license
! OF brewing company TO traffic in liquors in
side tho Washington Park baseball grounds In
| Brooklyn $50 feet cas-: OF Third avenue. be-
cause the company sold lager beer at more
than ore point on the grounds. The Special
Term refused TO revoke the license. andtho re-
| fusal was sustained by the Appellate Division
and the Court Of Appeals. In the opinion NJ
the latter tribunal. which was written by j udgo
! O'Bren. II was asserted that criminal con-
| yictlon was a condition precedent TO the for
ielture OF a liquor tax certificate for violation
/ o. the law subsequent to Its Issuance.
/ The State Commissioner did not like this
construction OF the statute. fearing that II
woul greatly embarrass him in the aGminis-
tration Of the law: and he moved for a rrargu-
lncnt Of the case on the ground that he over
looked the point in tho brief OF his adversary
/ Tho pamphlet number Of the Combined OH
: cial Series Of Law Reports" Tor Dec - 1889
! contains the decision upon the motion. 1t de-
! mics a rearguHcn;, but lee ares TINT lnRsmuch
~ the. appeal was tightly decided ON o'h"-
/ grounds tho Court would regard the Iucsc'oh
! whether 4 criminal CONNECTION Is yre-
requisite u the iorie,ure OF liiuoI tax CERT
nS as . m matt, 4, 1GSr TO- y, p.Asr GsSn
yet undecided by the Court of Appeals.
! The not lon for new trim, on the ground O,
! newly discovered evidence In tho cas-. o. How
! nrd e. Benha'n. who Is under conviction OF
| murder in tho frat degree '1r having poisoned
his wife with prussic ac.i AZ their home In
! Batavia. n. Y. vas heard at Buffalo on Tues
! day and Wednesday before Mr. Justice Hooker
| OF the SUPREME Court. The ail,davi's read in
/ support OF the application tend to show that
! both the husband and tho wife had been suffer-
ing from malndy Tor which prussc acid Is en-
! ployed as a remedy that they had used II In an
| effort to euro tho disease: and that
! this accounted for the presence OF
! prussic acid In tho dead body Of
| Mrs Benham. There was proof that
Benham told the prison chaplain that he would
| rather die than divulRe the fnct that his wife
! wa, suffering from the aiiment for which the
! rrusSlc acid was administered On Thursday
pSt the execution rom the week fc S
! ming on The I'd OF January 70 the week begnnlpg
Mr Just t% i CO Hook"r Who dssirS tRc ADDITIONAL
| time in order TO consider and determine the
motion for a new trial.
| A curious complication has arisen In Indian
apolis in reference to will which was recently
presented to the Probate Commissioners In that
| city The testatrix died on the 14th day OF
| December The probate clerk observed that
| the will bore date on tho following day. He
| called the attention OF the person presenting II
| to this discrepancy. but was assured that q
| mistake had been made In dating the instru-
| ment. which was executed only few hours he
| fore tho death Of the testatrix. Thercupon the
probate clerk proceeded to change the date OF
! the will from the 18th to 18th. When the docu-
| ment was taken before the Probate Commits
sioncr, however. no refused TO admit It oprobate
on account OF the erasure Of the original date
| and the substitution OF the new one. The case
| ap,ly illustrates the danger OF altering written
instruments without authority. The ofilcious-
| ness OF this probate clerk has put stop to the
| proceeding 10 prove the will until the Commits
sioner can determine, what he ought to do in
| the matter. II would seem thnt unon proof 81
| ali the facts "a to the actual date Of execution
| and the circumstances unler which tho date
| was changed the will ought to BIO admitted to
| probate
| The most important decision which has been
rendered since the Tilden will case. relating to
| the law OF charitable trusts. Is the case oi Allen
| against Stevens decided by the Court Of APP
| peals on the 9th inst, and reported In the
| latest NUM- Der OF the Combined Official Series
| OF Law Reports. Tho trust attemp pied to be
created by the will OF Mr.. Tildcn for the es-
tabishmsnt OF a free library and other pur-
poses. was pronounced void by the Court
| OF Appeals In 1891. because OF tho indea-
! niteness Of the bepencaries In 1893. and