The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-01-24
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

On the subject OF Some Popular Legal
Superstitions' Case and Comment says
that there are many misconceptions OF
legal doctrines. usually tenaciously held
and sometimes rashly acted upon to the
clients undoing, some of which are so
distorted that II In difficult
to trace them TO their origin. one of the
most widely spread but fortunately harm
less of these Is that In order that a will
an heir may he valid he
must be "cut of with a shilling" This
notion Is erroneous. but Blackstone finds
a foundation for It in tho civil law and
says: THE Romans were also wont to
set aside testaments as being inofiiciosa,
deficient in natural duty. II they dsin-
heritod or totally passed by without as
signing true, sufficient reason) any of
the children OF the testator. But If the
child had any legacy. though ever so
small. II was proof that the testator had
not lost his memory or reason. which
otherwise the law presumed but was
then presumed to have acted thus from
substantial cause. Hence probably has
arisen that groundless vulgar error of
the necessity OF leaving an heir "A shill-
ing, or some other express legacy. in
order to disinhcrit him effectually."
Another erroneous idea, quite generally
entertained, is that signature liz not
binding unless written In ink. stu an
other curious notion entertained In some
localities Is that an eyewitness may not
testify to any occurrence seen by him
Through glass" This Is probably at
tributnble to the fact that the imper-
fections Of ancient window glass might
deceive the onlooker as to what actually
took place The writer recalls an in
stance adduced by his instructor in phys
les while lecturine on tho refraction of
light. OF window pane in hts house
through which passershy on the opposite
side Of the square appeared, on coming
opposite TO q church. to leap over the
steeple A condition OF this sort brought
out on cross-eNauinatlon might affect the
weight though not the adnissibility, OF
the evidence.
An English legal periodical recently
published an inquiry sent to u by a
lawyer as 30 the origin OF n belief en-
countered by him, that IL Is no offence
to throw water on a person, provided
the water be dirty. A client Of his, sum-
moned for assault. had assured him that
he had sufficient defence. because he
had taken the prccaution OF putting a
handful of dirt In the water before throw
ing H. Another correspondent suggested
as the solution the ancient practice. be
fore the days OF drains and sewers. OF
throwing waste water into tho street.
When this practice was prevalent doubt
less the fact that the water was dirty, In
stead OF clean, was a circumstance tend -
ing TO show that the wetting OF the un-
fortunate passerhy was a misadventure
rather than by design.
The story Of how Count Tolstoy made
his will L. told In the annual Of the
Tolstoy Society by one of the witnesses
and is reported by London Public Optn'
/ ion. On July %, 1910. the witness waS
summoned by lawyer. who said that
Tolstoy wanted to make his will without
AN hours delay They rode away AT once
! to tho meeting place, a mile from Tolstoy''
/ home He met them and led the way
/ into dense forest.
On the thickest part Of an" the mar
ratlve continues. eve stopped at bis
sturnp of a tree. Tolstoy sat down OF
the stump. took fountain pen from hi'
pocket and asked for "A sheet OF paper
/ with feet crossed he began TO make tn
rough sketch OF his will"
! Il was completed, signed and wit
messed then and there, and then: III
rose and going 10 his horse said TO me
! How CHASTITY all this legal business II
with an activity remarkable in man o
80 he swung himself into the saddl
and vanished quickly IN the dar
greenery of the underground
Attorneys having some natural incl
nation for verse making are assured by
recent decision IN the Baltimore CIT
Court that prose is still preferred for
statement Of the cause Of action in
damage suit The case In question Wa
a claim for $500 for the destruction {
A shade tree In front OF the piaintin
house, set forth In verse as follows:
Gin the year nineteen fourteen II di
seem meet,
At one-thirteen West Henrietta street.
To the defendants TO fell down the plaiI
tins tree,
which stood there for quarter OF a cer
fury.
Twas n beautiful shade tree, which n
plaintiff. IN truth,
Ayers. was TO her. n sweet shelter
youth.
And which later adorned her residence,
TIL CClled by the defendants negligenc
For by their servants, within the courS
OF their toll,
The defendants this shade tree OF old di
despoil
BY digging 80 near to its roots wthal
That Il through negligence was cause
To fall
Twas on June the twentieth. as u
plaintiff will show.
That a new curb was placed at the loci
In quo
By the defendants. who rooted the TT,
|
: And caused the plaintiff to lose both /
beauty and worth.
Wherefore she now enters a suit in Il
cause,
And asks five hundred dollars TO GOV
, her loss"
! The defendant did not answer the su
l and in due time the plaintiff got jud
2 ment by default. Then for the first tin
! the defendant appeared and asked TO "
cate the Judgment on the ground tn
when a copy Of the complaint was hand'
4 to defendants representative he thong
' IL was not TO be taken seriously becau
Il was in verse In fact no one connects
I with the defendant who saw the poe
I thought II was the declaration in a Lay
suit The court merely glanced ~ 4
& poem and then set aside the judgment.
, The United States District Court (
: the Southern district OF New York hol
, In Lehigh and Nilkesbarre Coal COmpal
/ W. Hartford and New York Transport
, tion Company that the duty of an own
a | OF vessel wrecked and sunk IN nay
gable channel TO mark II with a buoy
beacon during the day and lighted lante
at night. and maintain ouch marks un
q the sunken craft Is removed or abandone
, cannot be delegated 10 the United stat
!, any more than IL can be Ia a private pc
a | son. The volunteer conduct OF ofilci:
of the United States would not relieve I
y owner of a sunken vessel not abandon
G Of the responsibility placed upon him.
Wa.NNa