The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-01-15
Norrs or rraAL rrrrrA

DEE I ~ w h"N bhi III NllN
western part Of the State. Judge Spring ia q
native OF CattarauRus county. where his father
wss County Judge and where he himself has
held the once Of Surrogate. When Justice
Halaht went from the Eiahth Judicial District
70 the Court Of Appeals, Mr.. Spring succeeded
him on the bench Of the Supreme Court bv ap-
pointmsnt from the Governor. and in the fall
OF 1895 he was elected q Supreme Court Jus
tice In that district 10 succeed himself. for che
full-term Of fourteen years. He is.about -
years OF age and received his professional
education ct the law school Of the University
OF Michigan.
The Court Of Appeals on Tuesday handed
down decisions in hfty-three cases. These
COMPRISED thirty nine aflrmances. airtesn
reversals and one modification. OF the Affirm
ances the most important were in tire case Of
Mrs. Place. convicted Of murder in the first de-
gree in the County Court Of Kings county. and
the controversy between the school boards Of
Manhattan and Brooklyn in relation to the dis
position Of the school moneys to be divided
between the borouRhs under the provisions Ut
the Greater New York charter. The most
noteworthy reversal was that in the celebrated
cnse Of Laidlaw against Sage. in which the
plaintiff sought TO hold the well known nnan-
c,er liable for the injuries sustained By the
plalntif By reason OF the explosion Of the bomb
which Norcross brought into Mr.. SaRe's ofios
N DoCCulboIs
The afirmancs OF the conviction Of Mrs.
Place will doubtless give rise to an earnest dis
cussion as TO the propriety Of infiicting the
death penalty in the case OF q woman. Indeed.
remonstranoes AGAINST the execution Of Mrs.
Place have already appeared In the newspa-
pers. The only woman upon whom capital
punishment has been inflicted in recent times
in the State of New York was Roxiana Druse.
who murdered her husband in Herkimer coun-
~. iu December. 1884. The murder was: one
Of peculiar atrocity. Mrs. DIuss not only
pelled her nephew. q lad but IA years old.
70 fire a pistol shot at her husband. but then
fred at him herself. knocked him on The head
with an axe. and'cut his head of. As we rec
olleot the case, the view EXPRESSED by Gov.
Hin was that the application for executive
clemency in behalf Of a woman should be dealt
with precisely on The same principles a. would
control the determination Of such an applcR-
ton on behaltota man. and that a. long as the
Jaw made murder in the first degree punisha-
bic by death the sex OF the convict should not
relieve her from the penalty in a clear case OF
deliberate and premeditated murder. It may
lie. however. that there are circumstances in
Mrs. Places caae which would call for a COM
mutation even If the crime had been commit
ted by a man.
The principal question in the school case
between the borough OF Manhattan and the
borough OF Brooklyn related TO the time when
the charter scheme for the division Of the
school fund between the two boroughs should
take effect. In one section the charter exA
pressly provides that it shall be the duty Of the
Board of Education to make appropriations
and adopt bylaws so that the new system for
the administration OF the public schools Of this
city az provided by this act shall 20 into full
effect on July l. 1898" This. standing By It.
self. seemed plain enough; but the Manhat-
tan school board thought that it was qualified
by other portions OF the charter so as to pre-
vent any distribution Of the school moneys ae-
rordins to the new plan until the beginning OF
the present year. This view, however. has
been rejected by every court to which 1t has
been presented. The scheme Of distribution
prescribed by the charter undoubtedly ope-
rates somewhat unequally and to the advan-
tane Of Brooklyn: but this inequality can readi-
ly be remedied by intelligent Legislation.
II The decision Of the Court Of Appeals in
the Sage bomb- throwing:case Is correctly epit-
omized in the newspaper reports sent from
Albany. Mr.. Laidlaw's defeat is practically
final. According to the summary Of the opin-
ion. the court fails to ind any proof to justify
the inference that the change in Mr. Laidlaw's
position which he attributed to the action OF
Mr.. Sage had anything to do with Mr.. Laid
laws injuries. In other words. it is not Der
ceived that Mr.. Laidlaw would not have been
hurt Just as much as he was IL Mr.. sage had
not caused him to move Immediately before
the bomb was exploded. Tho Court OF Ap-
peals would seem to be Of the opinion that it
was umb upon Mr.. Laidlaw to prove AZ
Tentatively that his change or position. due TO
Mr.. sage's interference. caused him to be in
jured more thar he would have been other
wise. The view which prevailed in the courts
here was different. Thus. on the first appeal.
" D. .,-Al NL4a la !
Euage: If the defendant put his hand upon
or touched the plaintiff and caused him to
change his position with that Intent, he was
guilty Of q wrongful act toward the plaintiff;
and II tho plaintiff was injured by the hap
peninRs Of the anticipated catastrophe. then
tho burden is thrown upon the defendant OF
establishing that his wrongful act did not In
the slightest degree contribute TO any part OF
the injury which the plaintiff sustained By rea-
son OF the explosion" tT3 Huns Reports. 1921
A case against the executors of The late Cor |
neius K. Garrison. involving large amounts
and having q complicated history. was also
finally disposed Of by the Court OF Appeals on
Tuesday. It was . suit By Clark Robinson
Griggs for an accounting By Garrison OF va
rious large financial transactions arising out
ri the building Of the line OF the Wheeling and
Lake Eric Railroad Company. q corporation
organized under the laws OF Ohio. The plain
TN mad the contract for constructing the road
and Garrison provided him with funds. Cor
tain promissory notes were pledged to Garri-
son a. security. These notes he surrendered
Z, tho MAKER at the rate Of rs cents on the dol
lar. GrigRs claimed that this was done with
cut his consent. and sought to recover dam
ages on the ground that Garrison's use OF the
notes constituted an unlawful conversion.
There were also other Issues In the suit. which
was tried three times. On the last trial the
rHierse rendered = Judgment OF $685.. 240.5O
IN favor Of GrtEEs. The executors Of Garri-
Non appealed. and the Appellate Division OF
the Supreme Court in this district unnni-
rously reversed the Judgment on the merits.
thus holding that the plaintiff could not sue
coed In any view OF the case. The plaintiff