The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-02-28
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

has caused the reversal by the curt
Of Appeals OF n judgment of c%onvic-
ton OF AZ attorney charged with "A
felony in Offering for evidence in a
civil action a typewriter paper he
knew to have been fraudulently altered.
The case was People vs., Risley. and
two elaborate Conflicting opinions were
written 10y members ON the question as
to whether a conceded error in admit
ting testimony was round for re-
N-fsal. The prosecution sought to prove
that the defendant wrote the words
"the same i'm the document in ques-
ton. and showed that six separate let
ters in the two words contained eleven
defects and peculiarities corresponding
with the type on u machine In the de-
fendant's office. The defendant then
offered evidence that similar defects
were found in othei machines. and TO
meet this the People called an expert
mathematician to testify that from the
given facts the mathematical proba-
bility that eleven defects would appear
IN any othor machine was one IN 400
Goa. Ouu.
TN. Judges Of the Court OF Appeals
all agreed tnat the testimony was Inn
roper because it involved an attempt
to .stablish the happening OF q past
event bN an abstract doctrine of
cnauCes. and that II was for the jury
to pass on The probability ~ sucn "A
number Of defects appearing in any
other mach ne. The majority accord
,ngly ruled that the evidence presum-
abb, =, affected the result that a new
trial should be ordered. The ma joritN
opinion of Judge Miller said
"Dr course the combination OF partic-
ular defects In one machine. IL 1t existed.
was the damaging fact against the de-
feudnnt. and IL Il were established that
the eleven assumed defects actually eN-
'st'd in the defendants typewriter and
c~orfespond-d with the defects To- the lis
puted writing should h" prepared to
agree that the fact in issue was so con
clusively established 40 to Iender tn"
error harmless but u careful cNamiua-
ton Of TIA. exhinIts convinces me mat
upon TINS branch of the case the juiN
must have relied largely upon the con
illusions OF the experts and that IN All
p. Inability they were profoundly I'M
pressed toy the conclusion Of Prof. shy
der that the assumed defects would
not recur In another machin" once In
900. 600. 0OU times. While the exist
enc, OF the defects was merely assumed
loo the question put 20 the witness ~ -
gong to-, far to assume that the jury 80
carefully ANAL zed the evidence ~ 10
| Distinguish between defects assumed IN
the abstract n those actually found To
eNis: and to note the precise relation be-
tween the defects IN the defendants
typewriter and those appearing in IN"
disputed whiting aud the standards ~
| - mpalisou. The vice of the testimony
consisted In It's being purely ~ "OStih'l
theory. having no relation 10 actual eN-
p,iience. The minds OF III" jury were
thus diverted from the actual facts Ia
.ssu. ard led into q MAJ. OF abstract
theory aud speculation, and II - not 20
In. suppos-d that they perceived what
escaped the notice OF the court aud the
| District Attorney. that rnere was no PC
la;iou between the facts and the the
DRY"
judge Seabury stated IN q dissenting
opinion that the efrof could he di>ie'
garded as comparatively unimportaui
aud said
w. ought not l." forget that ~ the
l,st aualN sis tn. great purpose Of a
| rim nal trial = to determine whether
the defendant = guilty o. Innocent.
| Nh.n the defendant, Suilt is proved
. should not ne allowed To- .scap. tn.
| OF -euuenc-s OF h!s act because of q
technical error in the cours- Of 4 long
| trial
Tn. Supreme. Court Of keniu,kN dee
cided IN Nicholson vs. Patrick that IN
a wif.s action AGAINST a physician for
injuries due to her taking POISONOUS
medicine contained in an ~unlabelled
/ bottle procured from defendant ny he:
husband f,r Ms own H." the husband
could not t.s;if, that tnc defendant
"a lied g" LABEL ~" bottle.
Ia HINES IS. I..l,js before the su-
prem. Count OF Missouri Z is held that
where the salary OF a priest dep.ud-d
on hiS r~igntful incumbeury ~ = rriest
A did not constitute a property liSnt
s.ch tS could ~" me courts ju'iSd'c-
t.u, OF mdudamu~ t. review the act. Oh
OF the church authorities in eXcom-
m~uuicai,nG hin and dcpr'Ning aim of
such salary.
The New York Lor JouHoJ approves
a bin introduced at Nua.y To amend
the Law so as 10 require = Wrttt.u
agreement t. justify suit tor breach of
promise 81 marriage. and sty- concern
ius T.:
TIE effect 81 this obviously would
,c TO bring mutual promises 'o marry
within IN" statute Of Frauds 80 thu,
such a promise Nould moi ne legally
valid unless, like any other promise
rddo Co. consideration Of marriage. il
was evidenced by a note OF Tomoran-
dum IN writing subScrih.d log the PARTY
20 he charged Herewith
In u lud meat TINS would ne q
just and "Npedi"n, amendment of the
Law. We hay. Oh several oCcaS oUS eN-
pressed the View that tie action FOR
breach 2 promise of marriage should
70. entirely ~ahrogatcd because. under
modern social conditions, N" abuses
arising from tbs r.Cognlt ON of thit
ground Of litigation outweigh any "N-
ccr;iorIl and incidental benefits. The
proposed bill Mould materially ,bvIatc
those abuses. a. Il would strike a. tn.
et'lciyN Of perjury i'm actions htou-ui
lN adv .uturrSS's
Moreover, in sums for breach of
/ promise considerations of sentiment are
laid aside and TN" rrltt a. n botNceu thu
parties are reduced to - strictly business
basis. Such policy Has been carried 50
fir ,ha' ON IN" trial evidence of the
defendants wealth : competent In order
to mctsur" the plHiutif's damage AID
no nNlug the amount of nor recovery.
1t seems only proper TO require a con.
tract tina is n, lizcd i'm such q mDrcru-
any manner TO he evidenced los q
writing"
The ursl dt,Is.ou as to the dut, OF q
Gas cumpa"' 10 < ut off the gas no case
Of mo ON premises where 1t IL supplied
cor usr. seems 10 Ice tho West Virginia
rase eff George ~. T~ri-Sialr Gas Com
pHuy. - :. T.. go. - l.. Il \. ~. -
~. winch holds that a company sup
plNUg gas To- premises Wherein TIA,
oWuer has his own gas appliances Is not
liable r"l failure To- shut off tie gas
from tine premises when the, are on