Page images
PDF
EPUB

delivered it to him, desiring him to take care of it, and if she recovered, to return it to her; if not, to open it, and keep it. She died on the 5th November, when the son opened the parcel and found it to contain bank receipts, for three per cent. stock to the amount of 350l. purchased in 1821 and 1823, in the name of “Ann Smith; ” a broker's account for the same ; a paper in the deceased's handwriting stating she had not had any interest for the money so invested, and a paper, in a testamentary form, to the following effect: – “In the name of God, Amen. I, Ann Smith, late of Epping, Essex, do declare this to be my last will and testament. I give and bequeath to Thomas Horatio Jolly, son of Thomas Jolly, all the money I possses in the bank of England in the three and four per cents., hoping he will receive it, and no one else.” Reference was then made to some children in America, and it bore date 3d May, 1824, and was signed “Ann Smith, of Epping, Essex.” A memorandum at the foot purported that she had received no dividend on this money, and it was endorsed “T. H. Jolly, 79, Farringdon-street.” The husband had ascertained at the bank, and at the office of the broker, (who was dead) that this amount had been invested in the name of Ann Smith, and that no dividends had been paid on the stock. It was proved that the deceased, whose maiden name was Richards, about the year 1821, had been on a visit to Epping, but there was nothing to connect her with the name of Smith. Haggard, D., moved for a grant of administration to the husband of the effects of the deceased, as “Ann Jolly, otherwise Smith.” SIR. H. JenneR.—Is the court to identify Ann Jolly with Ann Smith ? It is impossible that I can grant administration to the husband of his wife's effects as “Ann Jolly otherwise Smith.” She never appears to have gone by the name of Smith on other occasions. If the husband takes administration, it must be in the name of “Ann Jolly.” The property must be recovered by action, or in chancery, or some other mode; it is not for this court to take upon itself to decide the point, that Ann Jolly is the same person as Ann Smith, for the purpose of obtaining this money: it would be very dangerous for the court to do so.

CRITICAL NOTICES.

1.—The Revised Statutes of the State of Vermont, passed Norember 19, 1839, to which are added several public acts now in force; and to which are prefired the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Vermont. Published by order of the legislature. Burlington: Chauncey Goodrich. 1840.

THE volume, of which the above is the title, is the result of the second general revision of the statutes of Vermont. The first took place in 1797, and was executed by a committee consisting of Messrs. Roswell Hopkins and Richard Whitney, appointed in 1795, to whom were afterwards added, in 1796, Messers. Nathaniel Chipman and Samuel Hitchcock. In 1807, a compilation of the statutes, which had been prepared by Thomas Tolman, was ordered to be printed and published by the legislature. In 1823, William Slade, jun., prepared a compilation of the laws, in pursuance of an appointment by the governor and council, authorized by an act of the legislature. This compilation, which we have shortly noticed (vol. xviii. p. 252,) was published in 1825. A second volume, containing the laws subsequently enacted, was prepared and published, under the authority of the legislature, by Daniel P. Thompson, in 1834. In 1837, an act having been passed, authorizing the governor and council to appoint five commissioners to revise the statutes, Messrs. Robert Pierpont, Samuel Swift, John Smith, Norman Williams, and Lucius B. Peck were appointed for that purpose. These gentlemen entered upon the task assigned them, and, in 1839, presented their report to the legislature. It was adopted and enacted. The work before us bears a general resemblance to the revisions which have preceded it, particularly those of New York and Massachusetts. It differs, however, from both, in being divided only into titles and chapters, omitting the formal division into parts, which characterizes those revisions. But, notwithstanding this, the same general arrangement is observed ; and herein, we think, the Vermont revisers have improved upon the example of their predecessors; inasmuch as they have not attempted to give their work that appearance of completeness, unity, and orderly arrangement, which naturally attaches to a division into parts; and which are certainly wanting in the New York and Massachusetts revi. sions. The commissioners seem to have executed their task in a highly satisfactory and creditable manner.

2.—Review of the d'Hauteville Case : recently argued and determined in the court of general sessions for the city and county of Philadelphia. By a member of the Boston Bar. Reprinted from the January number of the Law Reporter. Boston: Weeks, Jordan & Co. 1841.

A law journal may, with strict propriety, take notice of legal decisions, in their bearing upon the public morals; and it may, as we think, refrain from doing so, without a dereliction of duty. In our last number, we noticed the decision of the somewhat famous d'Hauteville case, with considerable severity, as a flagrant and unjustifiable departure from known and established principles; but we refrained from commenting upon the conduct of the parties, in its influence upon society and its bearing upon the public morals; a task, which we have now no occasion to take upon ourselves, even were we so inclined, since the able and elaborate review of our cotemporary of the Law Reporter. The editor of that work, who is the author of the review before us, has taken up the case and examined it in its connection with and bearing upon the morals of the domestic and social states, as well as in its

character of a legal question ; and, in both respects, has acquitted himself with great ability and success. If we felt inclined to criticise his performance, we should say something of the unnecessary fierceness with which he sets himself to attack the conduct of the respondents, and of the somewhat desultory manner in which the legal examination is conducted. But both these faults (if such they be) are attributable to the very great haste in which such a review, in order to possess any interest at all, must unavoidably be written. If our contemporary could have given himself more time, we are sure that the legal argument, without losing any of its fulness and completeness, would have been more condensed, and differently if not better arranged; and that the comments upon the conduct and motives of the respondents, without losing any thing of their truth or severity, would have manifested less of that feeling of personal hostility, which we are confident does not exist in the slightest degree in the breast of the writer. The notice, which we felt it to be our duty to take of this case, as a legal decision, has been republished in many of the newspapers, and accompanied, in some, with editorial remarks, in which it is spoken of in terms of high approbation. But our views, it seems, have not met with universal favor. Mr. David Sears, one of the respondents, has seen fit to attack us, in a communication under his own signature, published in the Boston Daily Advertiser, soon after the publication of our last number. We shall not enter into a legal controversy with Mr. Sears, or with the able and learned gentleman, who, it is understood, acts as his legal adviser and critical supervisor in this matter. On the legal question, we have two remarks to make —first, that it was no part of our purpose to defend the law, as we believed it to exist, or to consider what it ought to be ; but, secondly, to state simply what we supposed the law to be, and to compare the decision of the court by that rule. The legal argument, if such it can be called, in Mr. Sears's communication, is directed rather to show what, in his opinion, the law ought to be, than what it actually is. The only thing stated by Mr. Sears, to which we have any answer to make, is the singular charge of a conspiracy against him and his family, by the editors of the Jurist and the Law Reporter; a charge founded, we suppose, upon the slender basis of those two journals having noticed the d'Hauteville case, at the same time;—and the answer to which is, that the January numbers of those periodicals were the first in which the case could have been noticed. If this be not a sufficient answer, we will add, for the satisfaction of Mr. Sears, that the charge is wholly groundless; the present editor of the Jurist is wholly and alone responsible for the notice in this journal, and for that only ; he has neither conspired nor confederated with any one to the injury of Mr. Sears or his family, nor has he desired to do them harm or to see them suffer in any way; he thought (he still thinks) the decision of the d'Hauteville case a most manifest and indefensible departure from known and wellestablished principles of law ; and he felt bound, as the conductor of a public law journal, to express his opinion of it in strong and decided terms. On much better ground, however, than Mr. Sears charges us with conspiring against him, we think we could, if we thought proper, charge him with conspiring to control (if not to suppress) public opinion, in reference to this decision. Late in the month of November last, we received from a member of the bar in Boston, who describes himself as never having “been counsel in any of the proceedings,” and as interested “merely in the legal reputation of the country,” a communication in favor of the decision of this case, and indicating the course which the writer desired the Jurist to follow in regard to it. This extraordinary interest in the matter was the first thing which called our attention to the report of the case. We thereupon read it with great care, and came to the conclusion which we presented in our last number. When Mr. Sears's communication appeared, containing the charge of a conspiracy between us and the Law Reporter, we had a conversation with the editor of that journal, and learned to our astonishment, that he had received a similar letter, from the same gentleman, and at about the same time. It so happens, that the only law journals now existing in this country are the American Jurist and the Law Reporter; and both these journals were thus sought to be influenced in favor of the decision of the d'Hauteville case,

« PreviousContinue »