The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-18
NOTES OF LEGAL EVENTS.

vessels In the ports OF the United Kingdom
must be licensed by the Board Of Trade. This
requirement however. does not apply to the
owner, master ORNATE Of the ship. or to ser
want and conservative OF the vessel owner.
The statute makes no M ention OF the question
OF nationality. and In practice. at Liverpool and
other ports. unlicensed shipping masters have
been permitted to engage CLOVIS for foreign
vessels The Board OF Trade. however. re-
Gently determine to insist upon a moro eI-
tensive application OF the Merchant Shipping
act. and In prosecution instituted agal inst an
unlicensed Norwegian shipping master at
Liverpool local court has decided that the
act Is operative In respect to the shipment OF
crews on all vessels which sail from British
ports. whatever their nationality. A more au.
thorltative decision to the same effect has
also been rendered by tho High Court OF JUS
tciary at Edin burgh. and Mr.. James Boyle.
our Consul at Liverpool. writes TO the State
Department that this construction Of the law
is now accepted generally as correct and as
satisfactory In It's etfect to restrict the evils
OF crimpinn.
It seems that the late Lord Fsher formerly
Sir William Balliol BRETT. who retired from
the ONCE OF Master Of the Rolls in 1897. and
who died on the oath OF May In the eighty.
fourth year OF his age. was in the habit OF
speaking OF his term OF judicial service as with
out precedent since the days OF Coke. The
London Times points out the inaccuracy OF
this claim. Lord Mansfield was Chief Justice
from 1855 until 1887; John Heath. who never
received the usual judicial honor OF knighthood.
was a Judge Of the Court OF Common Pleas
from 1880 until 1916. and the judicial work Of
Lord Wensleydale and Lord Bramwell ex-
tended over pc RODS exceeding thirty.years. II
We reck onitheir services In the House OF Lords.
Brett was a Cambridge man and rowed In
three university races against Oxford. by
his DEATH" says the London Times. "one OF
the most remarkable legal and judicial ca
reers OF our'time has been brought to an end"
Nevertheless. that journal adds. he never be-
came q legal oracle. like Willes or Bramwell
or Lord Blackburn. There was certain lack
OF distinction both In style and demeanor.
which In later years. with the modern tendency
TO conduct trials In the form Of short dialogue.
became increasingly apparent"
The Court Of Appeals on Tuesday sustained
Mayor Van WICK in removing the Auueduct
Commissioners from office at the beginning OF
his term. as II had previously sustained him in
removing the Commissioners OF the East River
Bridge. The Greater New York charter con-
fers upon the Mayor the power to remove from
Office any public. officer holding Office by ap-
pointment from tho Mayor, with the exception
OF certain school and judicial officers. when.
ever In his judgment the public interests shall
80 require but this absolute right OF removal
exists only during the first six months after
the Mayors term begins. It was contended
that the East River Bridge Commissioners
were agents OF the State rather than OF the city
and hence that their offices did not'fall within
the purview OF this charter provision: but the
Appellate. Division OF the Supreme Court in
Brooklyn speak iug. through Mr.. Justice Cullen.
declared that the bridge Was municipal work
aud that the Commissioners were removable by
the Mayor The Court OF Appeals affirmed
this decision. The power to.remove the AQue-
duct Commissioners was not so clear and the
judges were not unan imous on the subject
either In tho Appellate Division here or In the
Court OF Appeals. Mr. Justice Rumsey dis
scented in the Appellate Division aud Judges
Vann. Martin and Edward 7. Bartlett dissented
In the Court OF Appeals.
A nice question In the law OF negligence and
master and servant was presented in the caso
of.Woods w. the Long Islend Railroad Conn
pany III Appellate Division Reports 49, which
has Just been affirmed In the Court OF AT Iea's
The plaintiff. an expressman In the eiar 10Y ii
the defendant corporation. was so badly III
lured By an accident to his train at Babylon in
1894 that he was forced to suffer the am rLt,,.
ton OF a leg. The accident was due to the fact
that a hand brake was so adjusted as not to
press the brake shoes against the wheels Of
the car. II the duty of adjusting the brakes
was duty Of the train hands. which they had
neglected. then tho plaintiff was injured
through the negligence OF his fellow servants
and had no legal claim against the railroad
company: but II In the ordinary operation OF
tha rOai IL waa the puatom n IN IN ah "a 70
with properly adjusted brakes when the train
hands took charge. failure to do this would
make the company responsible. as. a master
nOglectinR to provide the servant with safe APP
pliances with which to do his work. The lat
ter view prevailed in the Appellate Division
and Court Of Appeals. though not without
dissent In both tribunals.
Four members Of the Supreme Court OF the
United States-Justicss Harlan. Brown. Peck
ham and Mchenna-disssnted from the de-
csion recently announced by that tribunal up
holding the validity OF the Kansas statute
which provides that a successful plaintiff. In
q suit against a railroad corporation to recover
damages resulting from Are. shall he entitled
TO a reasonable attorneys fee. to be fixed by
the trial court and included in the judg-
msnt. The dissenting opinion Is written by
Mr.. Justice Harlan and will seem to many law
yers stronger argument than that OF Mr..
Justice Brewer, who wrote the opinion Of the
majority. Judge Harlan pictures the state
standing at the doors OF its courts OF justice
and saying to the railroads: IF you enter he re
for tho purpose OF defending the suit brought
against you. it must be subject to the condi-
ton thata special attorneys fee shall be taxed
against you II unsuccessful while none shall
be taxed. against the plaintiff II he be unsuc-
cessful" Thus the State denies 10 one liti-
CANT. merely because it Is a corporation. sub
stantial prlyileGe.which Is accorded to the OPP
posing party. To do this is 10 ignore prin-
ciple which 10 declared to be as old as Magma
Charta.
Barbed wire fences have been the subject Of
restrictive legislation In many States OF the
Union. and have not ipfreduently elected Judi.
DIAL censure. Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes
OF Massachusetts, however. evidently thinks
that the courts have sometimes gone too far In
their condemnation Of this kind OF fencing. A
person walking along city street In the plight
time wandered on to an adjacent lot across
which was erected fence OF barbed wire. by
which he was Injured. In a suit against the