the march of the army, the billeting of soldiers, and the levying of contributions are quite necessary to carrying on land warfare. The latter is done for the

mony.-M. Alphonse Karr, the Frenchman who is the author of the celebrated phrase: "I am in favor of the abolition of the punishment of death-let assassins begin!" has just treated the question of cap-support of the army; the former cannot be said to be ital punishment, and after enumerating the hundreds of sailors, miners, and workmen who have perished in the exercise of their calling, the number of persons who have died by their own hands or by privations during the last year, he says only eleven persons were executed; "consequently the profession of assassin is, of all known professions, the least dangerous and the least unhealthy."

The Inns of Court are about to propound a grand new scheme of legal education. They have appointed Sir Edward Creasy, Mr. Joshua Williams, Mr. FitzJames Stephen and Mr. Eddis, professors The office of Advocate-General of the Queen of Great Britain's forces has been bestowed upon George Augustus Frederick Cavendish Bentwick - On December 23, the first legal vacation under the English judicature act begins, and ends on Jauuary 6.

The case of Brown v. Prine recently decided in the Court of Exchequer was an action in a bond for £1,000 given to plaintiff by defendant's testator. The answer was that before the making of the bond the plaintiff had seduced and committed adultery with the wife of the obligor; and that after the making of the bond, and before suit, the plaintiff promised the obligor, and it was mutually agreed by and between them, that if the obligor should not and would not expose and make public the conduct of the plaintiff with regard to the seduction and adultery, he, the plaintiff, would not enforce payment of the penal sum in the bond, or any part thereof, or any money thereby secured, or sue for the same; and the defendant averred that in pursuance and performance of the agreement the obligor did not during his life-time expose or make public the conduct of the plaintiff with regard to the seduction and adultery, but, relying on the promise of the plaintiff, faithfully, performed his part of the agreement; nor had the defendant since the death of the obligor, and while executors exposed or made public the said conduct of the plaintiff. The court thought the agreement was contrary to public policy and gave judgment for plaintiff.

Otis P. Lord was confirmed as judge of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in place of Judge Wells, deceased. - Professor Lorimer, in an article in the Scottish Journal of Jurisprudence, argues against the continental jurists, and in favor of the right of capturing private property at sea, and neutral right of absolute freedom of trade. In speaking of the right to capture private property at sea he asks the following questions: 1. Is it more destructive to life and limb than any other form of warfare? 2. Is it more injurious to morality than the march of a hostile army, the billeting of its soldiers, and the levying of contributions in a hostile country? 3. Is it less possible for the State to guarantee the citizen against exceptional loss in the case of property seized at sea than on land? 4. Is the English navy a less disciplined force, the honor of its officers or the honesty of its men less reliable, than in the case of any land force in the world? Probably the continental jurist would reply to these questions that the capture of private property at sea is not necessary to naval warfare or to the maintenance and combat of naval fleets; while

done for the support of the navy. This occurs to us to be the true distinction; and the real difference between English and foreign jurists is in the fact that the English do not accept the doctrine that warfare shall be confined simply to professional purposes and ends. If warfare is a contest between armies and between navies, then there is no logical excuse for capturing private property at sea.

Under the head of "An Aged Suit," the London Law Journal says: "Whatever scepticism may exist as to the duration of human life, no one can contest the possibility of a suit in Chancery lasting for 135 years. The fictitious suit of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce has been eclipsed by the real suit of Ashley v. Ashley. This glory of equity jurisprudence first saw the light in 1740, when Lord Hardwicke held the great seal. The Master in Chancery reported on it in 1792, the year in which Lord Thurlow was finally driven from office, exchanging the Chancery and the mace for Bath and the gout. From that memorable epoch the suit slept; but, as in Rip Van Winkle's case, the spark of life was not extinct, only dormant, and the suit re-appeared in the year of grace 1875, on November 19, before Vice-Chancellor Sir Richard Malins. The long torpor under which it had been oppressed had given it new strength, and when it awoke its giant form so affected his lordship that, in passing judgment, the Vice-Chancellor recommended that the suit should at once be removed into the Court of Appeal for final adjudication. In looking back upon the history of this suit, the greatest marvel is that Lord Eldon had no hand in promoting its longevity, and the next greatest marvel is that the Judicature Act will prove the weapon of its final destruction. There is, however, one fact in its career which must fill the profession with unalloyed pleasure. The costs have been paid from time to time out of the fund, and it is quite delightful to observe that the Vice-Chancellor wound up his judgment on the point before him with these refreshing words: Tax and pay the costs of all parties out of the funds in court.'"

The great art trial in Florence has come to an end with no very decisive results. The case is Connolly, the sculptor, v. Healey, the writer, the plaintiff demanding heavy pecuniary damages and penal punishment for alleged injury and defamation. Mr. Connolly is one of several American sculptors charged in the newspapers by Mr. Healey with not doing their reputed work, but employing clever Italian workmen to model for them, thereby gaining a false reputation and bringing art into disrepute. The Tuscan Code does not favor the introduction of evidence of the truth of the libel as a justification, so that the question whether Connolly was really an artist of merit or not was not passed upon; but on the penal issue the court rejected a plea of good intentions on the part of the defendant and sentenced him to fifteen days' imprisonment and a fine of 1000 francs. Both parties have appealed, and a long litigation is likely to ensue.— Senator Sumner was an admirer of Lord Brougham's speeches on Law Reform and on the Reform Bill. As to one of these, Lord Hardcliffe told me," he said, "that after Brougham delivered it, Earl Gray, in going out of the House of Lords in his company, said it was the most eloquent oration he ever heard in the English parlia

ment."