an ample dining-hall and elegant drawing-room, adorned with the busts and portraits of its eminent members. Each member is thus within the eye, and in a degree under the fraternal guardianship, of all the others; and heretofore, however it may be under recent regulations, Benchers, Barristers and Students have participated in the educational, as well as the social, life of the Inn. Westminster Hall had been built by William Rufus, (A. D. 1087-1100) more than a century before the above-mentioned clause in Magna Charta required the court of common pleas to be held in some certain place." It was originally built as an annex to the King's palace of Westminster, and its earlier uses seem to have been for royal ceremonies and festivities. Probably before Magna Charta the "Aula Regia" had its principal seat in Westminster Hall; but after Magna Charta, and probably in consequence of it, it is certain that Westminster Hall became the seat of the great judicial courts, including, for a long period, the Court of Chancery, after its establishment as a distinct jurisdiction. It has never wholly ceased to be used as the place where the coronation banquets of the English monarchs have been solemnized with the accustomed splendor, and as the place for the trial of peers, and of official personages charged with great crimes and misdemeanors. But its distinctive character has been acquired in consequence of having been for centuries the seat of the great courts of justice of the realm. Among the most finished pieces of wordpainting in the language, is Lord Macaulay's well known reference to the main hall as the place for the trial of the impeachment of Warren Hastings. You recall his words: "The place," he "6 says, was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the inauguration of thirty Kings; the hall which had witnessed the just sentence of Bacon, and the just absolution of Somers; the hall where the eloquence of Stafford had for a moment awed and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment; the hall where Charles had confronted the high court of justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his fame." The great Essayist by his love of dramatic effect, and by his immediate subject which was the trial of the extraordinary man to whose valor and genius Britain's monarch owes to-day, her title of "Empress of India," and her rule over the 275,000,000 of her Indian subjects, overlooked the less striking, but after all the chief glory of the place, as the source whence English justice for more than six centuries has gone forth in its silent but exhaustless flow, to the "business and bosoms" of men, throughout the entire realm, and whose principles are the rich inheritance of all English speaking people in every part of the globe. When Westminster Hall is mentioned, the world thinks of it as the seat of the Judicial Courts and the fountain of English Justice. Its permanent glory is derived, not from coronation banquets or the imposing spectacle of an occasional State trial, but because it is indissolubly associated with the history and development of the English law, with the renown of great judges, with the fame of learned lawyers and eloquent advocates. Peter the Great, visiting Westminster Hall in term time, was struck with the throng of men in wigs and gowns crowding the hall, and upon being informed that they were lawyers, exclaimed, "Lawyers! Why, I have only two in all my dominions, and believe I shall hang one of them the moment I get back." Lawyers and judges belong to a free people, and there was not then, and there is not now, in all the wide and barren expanse of despotism between the Crimea and Siberia, any such monument to the glory of the Russias as Westminster Hall. GENERAL NOTES. The oldest judge upon the English bench, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, completed his eighty-second year on Wednesday, October 9. The mortality returns for England and Wales in the year 1876 record the death of 183 men and 409 women registered as 95 years old and upwards when they died. Fourteen of the died at Mountain Ash, was 106. Forty-three of men had reached 100 or upwards, and one who the women had completed a century of life or more, and one who died at Sedgefield, in Durham, was 108 years old. Their respective ages were-Four men and twenty-one women, 100 years; two men and seven women, 101; five men and four women, 102; two men and three women, 103; two women, 104; three women, 105; one man and two women, 106; and one five females, who had reached 100 or upwards, woman, 108. Six of the persons, one male and died in the London districts. The Legal News. VOL. I. NOVEMBER 23, 1878. Two other decisions by the Superior Court at Montreal are noted in the present number of this journal. In Marais v. Brodeur, an action on a note, Judge Jetté held that an No. 47. insolvent (the maker, not sued) may intervene in the case simply to take up the fait et cause of the defendant, who was the endorser, and defend himself from liability, without giving security to the plaintiff. In the other case, Beausoleil v. Bourgoin, the same Judge held that an insolvent defendant, who has filed an opposition to a judgment against him, cannot, without giving security, call upon the plaintiff to declare whether he admits or contests the opposition. SECURITY FROM INSOLVENTS. Three decisions have been recently given which throw light on the latter part of Section 39 of the Insolvent Act. This section gives the assignee the exclusive right to sue for the recovery of all debts due to the insolvent, and to take, both in the prosecution and defence of all suits, all the proceedings that the insolvent might have taken for the benefit of the estate. The assignee "may intervene and represent the insolvent in all suits or proceedings by or against him, which are pending at the time of his appointment;" and the section then proceeds to enact that "if after an assignment has been made, or a writ of attachment has issued under this Act, and before he has obtained his discharge under this Act, the insolvent sues out any writ, or institutes, or continues any proceeding of any kind or nature whatsoever, he shall give to the opposite party such security for costs as shall be ordered by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, before such party shall be bound to appear, or plead to the same, or take any further proceeding therein." It is this clause which the Courts have had to interpret in the decisions referred to. The first case was that of Mackinnon & Thompson, decided by the Court of Queen's Bench in Appeal at Montreal, noted on page These decisions are important because we do not notice any reported cases bearing upon the clause in question. Mr. Clarke, in his interesting work, mentions the case of Lee v. Moffatt, 6th Upper Canada Practice Reports, p. 284, in which an insolvent, who filed a bill to set aside an attachment, and made the assignee a defendant, was required to give security for the assignee's costs; but the point there was obviously different. MOOT COURTS. We are pleased to notice that the system of Moot Courts, as commonly practised in the law schools of the United States, is being introduced into the McGill Faculty of Law; and although the innovation is made by the students themselves we understand that the project receives the hearty endorsation of the THE BALLOT. 494. In this case Mackinnon had been condemned in the Court below, and desired to appeal from the judgment. But in the meantime the plaintiff had become an insolvent, and the defendant naturally wished for security for costs in the event of his getting the judgment set aside. The assignee, it will be noticed, "may" intervene, but is not compelled to do In the case of ballot-box stuffing, in which 80. Where he does not choose to do so, the Forget and five others were accused of putting opposite party is left with the insolvent as his illegal ballots into a ballot-box and taking adversary. The Court of Appeal unanimously legal ballots out, Judge Ramsay prefaced his held in the case cited, that the appellant was address to the Jury with some observations renot entitled to exact security from the insol-garding the ballot. “With a laudable desire to vent, so long as the latter was not taking any put an end to all election frauds and all acts of proceeding to push on the case. an improper influence," the Judge observed, "the Legislature of this country has heaped repressive statute on statute until, at last, we have arrived at this ingenious contrivance, the ballot-box. It is very curious, indeed, that practical men such as our legislators generally are, should have required the test of actual experience to apprise them of the danger of this peculiar and very un-English mode of ascertaining the public will. The principle of the ballot box has been long discussed. Ffty years ago, the very inconvenience which we find now before us, and which has kept us here so many days, was foretold. It is impossible to conceive that members of Parliament were convinced that so absurd a scheme could lead to any good result. The only way we can account for its having been admitted in England and here is that members of the Legislature yielded to outside pressure and were afraid to say what they really thought, for fear of being accused of a desire to favor election frauds. But no accusation could be more unfounded, for they are the very people who suffer most acutely from such frauds." The ballot system is open to very serious objections. Not least among them is that it may affect and even reverse the real expression of the electoral mind, because so many ballots marked with honest intentions may be thrown out for informalities as actually to change the result of the election. The counting by a large number of persons, styled deputy returning officers, can never be very safe or satisfactory. The system becomes still more obnoxious when it is found to open the door to such gross frauds as were detected in the Jacques Cartier election. But on the other hand, it must be admitted that it does away with a great deal of the excitement that used to attend elections. People do get excited still, but it is excitement after the result is proclaimed, and does not lead them to interfere with the progress of the voting. REPORTS AND NOTES OF CASES. SUPERIOR COURT. MARAIS V. BRODEUR, and BRODEUR, intervening. An intervening party residing beyond the limits of the Province, and an insolvent under the Insolvent Act, who intervenes merely as the garant of the defendant and for the purpose of taking up the fut et cause of the latter and defending the action brought against him, is not bound to give security for costs. The intervening party, who was the maker of a note on which the defendant was sued as endorser, desired to intervene for the purpose of taking up the fait et cause of defendant and showing that the note was given without consideration. The plaintiff asked that the intervening party be ordered to give security for costs, both as being domiciled in the United States, and as being an undischarged insolvent. The Court held that Art. 29 of the Code did not apply to a case like this, where a debtor simply sought to defend himself. And so long of the Insolvent Act did not apply. as he was merely on the defensive section 39 Motion rejected. Bertrand for the plaintiff. Quimet & Co. for the defendant and intervening party. BEAUSOLEIL V. BOURGOIN et al., and BOURGOIN et al., opposants. Security for Costs—Insolvent Act, S. 39— Opposition. A defendant who has become an insolvent under the Insolvent Act, cannot call on the plaintiff to declare whether he admits or contests an opposition filed by him to the execution of a judgment against him, without giving security for costs. The plaintiff being called upon to declare whether he admitted or contested the opposition, moved that the opposants be previously required to give security for costs, they having become insolvent since their opposition was made. The opposition, which was made by the defendants, sought to set aside the seizure, for irregularities in the bailiff's proceedings. The opposants objected that being defendants they were not bound to give security. JETTE, J., held that as the opposants were endeavoring to force the plaintiff to proceed, Sect. 39 of the Insolvent Act applied. Motion granted. Geoffrion & Co. for plaintiff. Montreal, Nov. 11, 1878. obtained a reversal of the judgment, moved for an order upon the Prothonotary to return the deposit. TORRANCE, J. MCCALLUM V. HARWOOD et al. Peremption-Elected Domicile-Service. An action was pending in the District of Montreal, and no proceedings having been taken for three years, the defendant moved for péremption d'instance. The plaintiff's attorney ad litem resided in an adjoining district, and the service was made personally upon him there. Held, that this was a good service, though the plaintiff's attorney had elected a domicile in the District of Montreal where service could be made. Peremption granted. Trenholme for plaintiff. Montreal, Nov. 13, 1878. PRENTICE V. THE GRAPHIC COMPANY. Security for Costs-Temporary Absence-C. C. 29. Held, that a plaintiff temporarily non-resident will not be held to give security for costs under C. C. 29; the Court, before ordering security, must be satisfied that the non-residence is more than temporary. TORRANCE, J., in rejecting the motion for security, referred to a case of Cole v. Beale, 7 Moore 613, in which Lord Chief Justice Dallas said "that it was incumbent on a defendant to make out a clear case of permanent residence abroad, either actual or intended, to entitle him to call on the plaintiff to give security for costs, and that an affidavit founded on a mere belief was not sufficient for this purpose." Motion rejected. J. L. Morris for plaintiff. Montreal, Nov. 18, 1878. BOUSQUET V. BROWN. Review-Deposit. Held, that a party inscribing in review is entitled to a return of the deposit so soon as the judgment has been reversed in his favor. The Prothonotary objected that 15 days had not elapsed since the date of the judgment; and further that he was not bound to return the deposit until it was established that the defendant would not appeal to the Queen's Bench, or until that Court had confirmed the judgment in Review. TORRANCE, J., granting the plaintiff's motion, said that, desirous of securing uniformity in the holdings of the Court, he had conferred with his brother Judges, and had also communicated with the Chief Justice at Quebec. The Prothonotary of the District of Quebec informed the Chief Justice that his practice was to return the deposit without delay as soon as the inscribing party had succeeded in Review. The Judges in Montreal were all agreed that the deposit should be returned. P. H. Roy for plaintiff. Motion granted. A GLIMPSE OF THE COURTS IN RIO While in Rio de Janeiro last August I visited the courts of justice. My friend first took me to a judge at Chambers. The audience room is very neatly furnished: the entrance is through curtain doorways, and there is no slamming nor squeaking of doors; all is quiet and decorous and comfortable; a portrait of the Emperor of Brazil hangs over the judge's chair: this count corresponds to the Special Term of the New York Supreme Court; the judge tries the cause, in the first instance, without a jury; a jury is only employed here in criminal cases, never in civil. The courts, as a rule, are in poor buildings, but have pleasant suites of rooms. The Supreme Court of the Empire is a Court of Appeal; it never tries cases, but only reviews them, and confirms them or sends them back for new trial. There is an intermediate court called the Court of Appeals, which hears the first appeal from the trial judge. I saw the Supreme Court sitting; there are seventeen judges, all old men, wearing heavy cloth gowns, and each one with a snuff-box and large colored silk handkerchief before him; they sit around one large The plaintiff, inscribing in review, having table, the chief justice at the head, and hanging above him a portrait of the Emperor in military costume. These judges argue with each other, in banc, upon printed appeal books; they seem to take sides like counsel, differing warmly. Each case is decided by a majority vote. In this court there is no oral argument by counsel allowed, except in habeas corpus cases; all others are submitted on printed points, and no counsel are present. Lawyers are divided into solicitors and counsellors; the latter must be doctors or bachelors of law; a doctor or bachelor may be a solicitor, but not vice versa; doctor is a merely honorary title; but only a doctor can wear a ring with a ruby in it, on the third finger of the left hand. A doctor of medicine can wear an emerald ring. Solicitors study five years for their degree of bachelor, and must wait three years more for the degree of doctor. I visited the Orphans', or Probate Court; the crier seemed to do most of the business there. There, too, is a portrait of the Emperor over the judge's head. Then I went to the Police Court, and witnessed the jury trial of a negro slave, accused of assault with intent to kill. The district attorney made a fine speech, very well delivered; he was dressed in a silk gown or surplice, with a long lace tie with broad ends; he acted well; and with his cast of feature, and style of insinuating to the jury, would make a splendid Iago. There are two district attorneys in Rio, each getting $2,000 a year, and working every other month; in their off months they can practice for themselves. When the witness for the prosecution was sworn every person in the court room rose, to show respect for the oath. The judge wears a heavy cloth gown. There is no portrait of the Emperor in this court; where the jury exist the people rule. It was a good looking jury. Only ope witness was called for the prosecution; as he told what he saw of the assault, the accused hung his head and looked guilty; his counsel was paid by his owner, probably $250. The defence did not crossexamine nor produce any witness in this case. The district attorney, when addressing the jury, stood by the side of the judge. The prisoner's counsel stands in a detached pulpit, at the opposite end (from the judge, of the table, where the jury sit. I was told that this gentleman before me was the best criminal lawyer in Rio. He lately received one fee of $10,000 to defend an accused planter. He certainly made a splendid speech in this case, which I easily understood, even with my limited knowledge of Portuguese, because of his deliberate, rotund and finished delivery. It was a magnificent speech as a piece of oratory. He began by saying that this is not a trial of the accused by his peers, "for you are freemen and gentlemen, but the prisoner is a miserable slave; therefore, stamp on him! Crush him! Give a great victory to progress and civilization by taking vengeance on this poor serf! Vengeance, for what? Because when he was struck, he struck in return. But you are not his peers; he has no wife-he can have none; tear his woman from his arms-treat them like beasts! He has children-but they are not his by law; away with him to prison for twenty years, for what can a slave's unlawful children care for him?" It was fine. Then he attacked the indictment, or accusation, and finally settled down to lead the jury quite away from the actual issue and to interest them in side points. But all in vain. The stupid negro sitting there hanging his head was too heavy a weight, and the jury brought him in guilty, and fixed the sentence (which duty here devolves upon them) at the full term, twenty years at hard labor, as asked by the public prosecutor, and the owner lost her slave and her expenses. One of the pleasantest features in the Brazil. lian court rooms was the courtesy and consideration for each other on the part of the gentlemen of the bar; it was a delightful contrast to the jostling and disrespect which prevail in New York city, in crowded chambers especiallyGEO. W. VAN SICKLER in Albany Law Journal. RECENT UNITED STATES DECISIONS. [Concluded from page 540]. Illegal Contract.-1. By an agreement between A. and B. Coal-mining Companies, B. agreed to take at a fixed price all the coal which A. might wish to send to a certain district, not exceeding a certain amount per month, which amount was much less than A.'s monthly produce; and A. agreed to sell no coal to any other party to come into that district. Held, that the contract was unlawful as in restraint of trade; that it was entire; and that the promises were dependent; and that A. could not recover the price of coal delivered under the contract, though it had |