The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-06-24
NOTES o. LEGAL EVENTS.

eu1ou'hoo 70 reConvene at Albany on Oct' L.
~ did not decide the case Of the People on tho
relation OF Coney against the Democratic
General Committee Of Kings county. which
involves the power Of q political committee
under the Primary Election Law to expe q
member FOR q cause other than the non-pay-
ment OF dues. Leave was granted TO counsel
to submit further briefs on the appeal. The
hearing OF the Kennedy murder case from
this city was postponed until the October term.
Fridays batch Of decisions comprised ten
afirmanoes. three reversals and four appeals
dismissed. In Tuesdays list there were four
teen af1rmanoes. six r~eversals and one appeal
dismissed. The Court Of Appeals has reached
No. SIT on the regular call Of la calendar. which
whom made up on April II, 1909. comprised
800 cases, These do not include appeals from
orders many Of which are added to the calendar
from time to time. Appeals In criminal cases
are also placed on the calendar q they are
ready for argument
An important question relating to the owner
ship and control Of the seashore on the east
end Of Long Island has been finally settled
by the decision Of the Court Of Appeals which
was handed down on Tuesday In the case OF
the trustees Of the Freeholdcrs and Com
IuOudltg u ING lOWu OIL southampton 6oitio
Frederick II. Belts and st. Andrews Dunno
Church. The controversy grew out OF the con-
nicting claims Of two sets Of public trustees
the trustees OF the town and the trustees or
the original individual proprietors Of the COM
mon undivided lands in Southampton. BY
an act passed in 1918, the Legislature gave the
trustees Of the proprietors control over the
common lands and the trustees Of the town
control over the lands under water. Mr.. Belts
and 81. Andrews Church bought from the
trustees OF the proprietors the lands which they
occupy between the ocean and tho road on the
southerly margin Of the town pond. The
trustees OF the town insisted that the trustees
Of the proprietors had no right TO sell these
lands. inasinuch as by the act OF 1918 they
werc excepted from the common lands COM
mittod TO the care Of the trustees for the pro-
p~rictors. This view. however. has been re-
iected BE- oil the courts. which agree in holding
that the control Of the beach lands passed to
the tri.t..s a. tho proprietors. The title
of tho defendants is therefore upheld. They
were reDresonted in the litigation BY Elihu
Root. while James c. Carter was counsel for
the trustees Of the town. Both lawyers are
summer residents OF Southampton. Secretary
Root in the village and Mr.. Carter at Good
Ground.
The Constitution OF the State OF New York
prohibits leases Of agricultural lands for a
Longer period than twelve years. Ne lease
or grant Of agricult ural land for a longer period
than twelve wears, hereafter made, in which
shall be reserved any rent or service OF any
kind, shall be valid" This provision was con-
tanned in the Constitution Of ls48 and IL con-
.i.,.l l.. 49, Dnyi.oI Constitution Of 1904
Its operation has not very often been invoked
in the courts. but it Is the subject OF careful
consideration in an opinion by Judge Vann
Of the Court Of Appeals in the recently decided
case OF the Massachusetts, National Bank
against Shinn, which went up from the Second
Department. The litigation involved the lease
Of a tract Of land in Westminster county for
mining purposes for n term of twenty years.
Nc suggestion that this lease was ~violative
OF the Constitution was made before the referee
who tried the case or before the Appellate
Division, but the objection was made for the
first time upon the argument in the Cour OF
Appeals. The result reached by that tribunal
Is expressed in this sentence from the opinion
Of Judge vann: we think that this lease
does not rome within the spirit Of the Constitu-
tional prohibition because the property leased
was an iron mine extending for an unknown
distance under agricultural lands and was TO
be used exclusively for mining purposes"
II should be noted that the lessee acquired
no right under the lease to cultivate the land.
The acauittal OF Howard c. Benham, upon
his second trial for the murder Of his wife by
poison. seems to have been generally expected
In Ontario county. to which the venue was
changed from Genesee county. after his motion
for a new trial on the ground Of newly dis
covered evidence was granted. 1t will bs re-
memberd that he was convicted upon the first
trial. which took place before Mr.. Justice
Iaughlin Of Buffalo. and that the conviction
was affirmed by the Court Of Appeals. The
opinion Of Judge Haight, which was nearly
forty pages long. discussed the facts and the
law with exceptional care, even for a capital
case. and found no reason for interfering with
the verdict. (See 100 New York Reports. page
AO2) After this aflrmance the application
for a new trial was made upon the allegation
that new evidence In behalf Of the defendant
had been discovered. II came before MIR
Justice Hooker, who was new to the bench.
and he was subjected to some local criticism
for granting it: but the result Is sufficient justi-
fcation for his action. II Il needed any. His
OPINION OIL pEhnIu8 tp WOtou Inuy De IOuHu
In 30 Miscellaneous Reports at page 400. Ben
ham alleged that he was prevented by his
counsel from testifying upon the first trial
and that he refused to follow the direction
Of his counsel In this respect until he wa as
sured" that his wife did not die Of poison and
that the greatest chemists in the State would
so testify. The averments on this subject
created the impression that the defendant
would certainly take the stand In his own behalf
on the second trial and II IL a remarkable cir
cumstance that he was acquitted without
doing so.
A club litigation arising out Of the action
Of the house committee In disseminating to
furnish the club with a particular brand Of
whlskey recently came up for trial In London
before Mr.. Justice Lawrance and a jury In the
Queens Bench Division. In the complaint
book Of the Sports Club a member recon-
mended the disuse Of this whiskey "as It is dis
tinctly inferior" The manufacturer Of the
whlskey was a client Of a solicitor named Milton
Bradford, one Of the members OF the club;
and Mr.. Bradford wrote TO the GoverniR Com
mittee that he had been instructed to bring
an action for libel on account OF the unfavorable
mention Of his clients whiskey. The club
invited him to explain this threat. which he
declined to do. and thereupon expelled him from
membership. In a suit which Mr.. Bradford
brought 70 recover damages for his expulsion,
which he alleged to be unlawful. the court held
that the action Of the club had been taken in
accordance with It's rules. fairly and In apparent
good faith, and Mr.. Justice Lswrance directed
a verdict for the defendants.