The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-10-25
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.


| bFcause OF the rallure or a CITY Mag's.
trate to inform defendant after ,ur-
viction for disorderly conduct that Ne WIS
entitled to communicate with his rels-
tives or friends General Sessions Judge
| Rosalsky ~ reversed the conv elton o.
William r Patterson and granted a new
trial. The record shows that when tn.
defendant was arraigned no was informed
Of this right. but the Magistrate failed
to do so after he was convicted. In his
opinion Judge Rosalsky says he believes
the defendant was amply protected whom
informed OF his rights on arraignment
| but ~ IL not left to the Magistrate t.
ignore the plain and positive communal OF
tho Legislature"
| An odd question involving the duty
OF an attorney has been submitted % the
| committee on professional ethics OF the
| New York County Lawyers Association
| II appears that an accused person had
| deposited cash bail for his appearance
| on a criminal charge and also made a
! deposit with his attorney. subject TO the
| order OF the accused In case of conNic-
ticn, and BAH was forfeited. The attor-
nev asked n Il was improper for him 20
| honor an order from his client who fed "a
| Canada, to pay the money to some one
! outside OF the State and whether II was
! incumbent on him 60 notify the police
| authorities OF hia communication from
his client disclosing the latte-'s where
| abouts. The committee answered:
| I'm the opinion of this committee there
il no Improperly In the lawyers honor
ing the order OF his client In respect 10
the disposition OF his clients propert;.
The client has not forfeited all civil
rights nor his ownership of property by
becoming a fugitive from Justice In the
opinion Of the committee II would hc i'm
proper for tho lawyer 10 disclose tho
information his Obligation 10 his client.
imposed by our law In the Interest Of the
| supposedly proper and satisfactory ad-
min stration OF justice, a rule which Is
binding upon the lawyer, preoludes him
from making the disclosure to any one
without his clients express consent"
| In Davis VS. State before the Supreme
| Court OF Arkansas II appeared that Dc
PENDANT was on trial for homicide which
| occurred IN a store. Evidence was offe e J
showing that after having certain aim
Guilty with deceased at a mill N which
both worked the defendant told his wife
| he w~- going 10 the store to settle his
| account Tho majority OF the court held
that such statement was admissible to
explain defendants presence at the store
| ~" ',,, A.. r,,. ,,,, -,
asa,rs, ,ha admission n, The ,.s,irory
| and it's ruling is reea rded az sound ny
the editor OF the New York Lar Journal
as being In line with the predominatinc
S.. 60 ~, 49, g.. -
| ~ ,.S..,.s. ...t,h a. ,,,,,,,,a IT, ,hs
~ aooo'ua w" VIZ Iu""n ." W"
1921, - e!,L ."s. .u Nv
,.',a,,,,. -. ,ha a. 20 ,.,,,,,,,'d
pearance OF exoneration By persons de-
! 1iberately planning to commit crime !"
The minority opinion said IN part:
The mere fact that defendant wa,
present at the store before the homicide
or this fact. in connection with hi pre-
viously expressed intention to settle his
account. In view or tho issues raised by
the only defence interposed, was not i
| circumstance OF any consequence. did not
tend in the slightest to show that de
PENDANT took the life OF deceased only
after ne had been driven to the wall rs
IA these S,c,s or e,thar ~ them ,erc
| a, al, IN reh,, Tho nres,n,n,,or n, roaIic,
drawn nv the Law from me nonfesssdl,
intentional subsequent use Of de,dI,
| n.eanon NOV even 10 affect IN. grad, nj
the murder committed by way of tend
Ing 10 show that tho act was done wIthou,
| reconciliation or elaboration for the law
| ~ This STATE Is thu, ~ before striking
the fatal blow. the SLAYER has time I,
| think. though II be only an instant, ever
q single moment and does think and
after having thought, strikes the blow a,
| the result of an intention 70 Kill. produced
10y even such momentary operation a
the mind. there Is elaboration and pre-
meditation within the meaning of the stat
ute defining murder in the first degree.
,-- $780,.
., me supreme Nou't ol Hnhsas nous =,
! N'. N"''saS ~ a.eu ~ ~ ~
" 'hN wv roit,n'"' VI an .Ic.'I ~
nu.e' WI vac sui.S w suo,. ",,..o'i.r III
- w P'''', Nn'I' Nv ,'
c,r nI,hou, s,onnirg nas, p, sto,,on and
unnn a hridse knowing that a man wa,
| ri1in, ou,sIdo tho c,r In such , ,ositIor
that he wouls necessarilv he struck h,
| n hoap ~ tho hridre and severely Il
no, fatally intured
| The application or me new registration
| law to voters In country districts IL de-
| cided by the Court or Appeals IN Ruper'
va. Rees ct al, In which the court said
| The requirement OF the election Ia"
that new voter In county district shall
in order 10 have his name placed on the
| roll the first day OF registration, appear
| In person before the ir'~""'ors or fur-
nish to them his affidavit and th'
! affidav!ts OF two other electors, stat