take was not discovered until the goods were destroyed with the depot by fire. Held, that the carrier was liable. Meyer v. Chicago & N. W. Railway Co.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Commissioners. - Chapter 372, private and local laws of 1869, which appoints three commissioners "to superintend the erection of a court house in the county of Milwaukee," is invalid, being in conflict with section 23, Art. IV, of the State Constitution, which declares that "the legislature shall establish but one system of town and county government, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable." State ex rel. Keenan v. Supervisors of Milwaukee County.

CONTRACT.

1. For personal services. — In an action for plaintiff's services as defendant's agent under a contract to employ him for a specified time at a fixed salary, the answer alleged that the contract (which was in writing), was procured by false and fraudulent representations, and asked that it be adjudged void and canceled. Held, 1, That it is doubtful whether equity will adjudge a contract for personal services to be canceled for fraud, the fraud being always a defense, and the contract not assignable. 2. Quære, therefore, whether the facts alleged furnish a ground of counterclaim. Barker v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company.

2. Such facts not being set up in the answer distinctly as a counter-claim, and defendant having gone into the proofs as though they were in issue (though there was no reply), it was not error to treat them merely as a defense. Ib. 3. The giving of instructions inapplicable to the facts in evidence is not error, if they do not mislead the jury. lb. 4. Damages for a breach of contract for plaintiff's personal services may be reduced by the amount which he might have earned from other sources during the time of such breach; but the burden of showing that he might have made such earnings is upon the defendant. Ib.

5. The refusal of a new trial will not be regarded as error, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, if any construction of the evidence which the jury were at liberty to give, would sustain the verdict. 1b.

6. Where plaintiff was shown to have made to defendant, before his employment by the latter, a false representation as to the amount of business he had procured for a previous employer, but there was also evidence that he had submitted to plaintiff's agent the book of accounts on which this representation was based, and they had gone over it together, the jury would be at liberty to infer that defendant did not act on plaintiff's representation, but on the examination made by its own agent. 1b.

CONVERSION.

1. Demand.-Part of a raft of logs which plaintiffs were running to market, after being sold by them to A, were wrongfully taken by defendants, were resold by A to plaintiffs, and were afterward sawed into lumber and disposed of by defendants: Held, that no demand was necessary to enable plaintiffs to maintain their action as for a conversion of their property. Couillard v. Johnson et al.

2. It seems that if the conversion had taken place before the resale to the plaintiffs, a demand by them would have been necessary. Ib.

3. Although no memorandum of such resale was made and no money paid thereon, yet, as the logs had not been separated and delivered to A at the time of the sale to him, the possession was with plaintiffs, as against him, and the resale was valid, notwithstanding the statute of frauds. Ib.

COUNTER-CLAIM.

1. In action by lessor.-Complaint against lessee of a hotel, alleging that when his term expired, instead of surrendering possession as he had covenanted to do, he carried off certain articles forming part of the property leased. Counter-claim for the value of articles owned by defendant, but which plaintiff refused to allow him to remove, when he surrendered possession of the building: Held, a

good counter-claim under sub. 1, sec. 11, ch. 125, R. S. Vilas v. Mason.

2. It was alleged and proof offered by defendant, that plaintiff had promised, if said articles were left in the hotel, he would pay for them whenever they "should be adjudged, by suit or otherwise," to belong to defendant. Quare, whether the adjudication of title, which was the condition of the promise, could be made for the first time in an action on the promise itself; and whether, therefore, this could be upheld as a counter-claim arising upon contract. Ib.

3. An amendment which merely completes the statement of a cause of action or ground of defense, defectively stated, should be allowed on just terms. Ib.

4. Defendant having claimed title to the articles mentioned in his counter-claim under a purchase from a third party, and plaintiff having introduced evidence of paramount title in himself, it was not error to allow an amendment of the counter-claim by alleging any facts which would estop plaintiff from setting up such paramount title. Ib.

CRIMINAL LAW.

Consecutive sentences. Where a person has been convicted of several distinct offenses, the court may proceed to give judgment upon each; and in so doing may direct that the term of imprisonment for one shall commence at the expiration of that for another, and so on until all the terms have expired. Petition of McCormick for a Habeas Corpus.

DAMAGES.

1. In actions for injuries to wife. In an action by husband and wife under the statutes for injuries to the wife from defendant's negligence, damages cannot be recovered for loss of her time and services, or for the expenses of nursing and medical attendance. Kavanagh et ux. v. City of Janesville.

2. Whether damages for these items could be recovered in a separate suit by the husband, is not here determined. Ib.

3. Where such damages were improperly allowed, the judgment is affirmed on condition that plaintiffs remit a certain sum, being the largest amount which the jury could have allowed for those items, under the evidence. Ib.

DIVORCE.

For neglect and desertion.—The complaint alleges that defendant, though abundantly able to work and earn a good livelihood for himself and plaintiff (his wife), has utterly failed and refused to do so; that he has not purchased any clothing for her for several years, nor contributed any thing toward her support, but has compelled her to go out to work by the day and week among strangers, and then taken her wages and spent them for his own dissipation; that during two years before the action he has never furnished her with any house nor boarded her, but has compelled her to work out as a servant; that he has frequently left her for several months without her knowing where he was, and then she would learn by his writing to some neighbor or to her employer; and that he is wholly indifferent to her happiness, to her wishes, and to her appearance. Held, a sufficient ground of divorce, under sec. 11 and subd. 3, sec. 10, chap. 111, R. S. Keeler v. Keeler.

ESTOPPEL.

1. When owner estopped as against purchaser from third party.- -An owner of property, who stands by and sees a third party selling it under claim of title, without asserting his own title or giving the purchaser any notice thereof, is estopped, as against such purchaser, from asserting it afterward. Vilas v. Mason.

2. In such a case the purchaser need not show by further proof that such owner intended to influence or did influence his conduct in making the purchase; since the law will so presume from the facts stated. Ib.

3. When any construction of the evidence which the jury were at liberty to give would sustain the verdict,

and the court below refused a new trial, this court will not interfere on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence. Ib.

EVIDENCE.

1. Answer of witness. Where the answer of a witness states only facts which are admissible in evidence, there is no error, although the question was improperly allowed. Couillard v. Johnson et al.

2. Entries in books of account.-Where a witness has sworn that he knows certain entries in a book of accounts to have been correctly made, they may be read in evidence, although not made by the witness, but by another person from memoranda furnished by him, and although such witness cannot testify to the facts from present recollection independently of the entries. Riggs v. Weise et al.

3. Of circumstances to explain acceptance. A draft by F. on defendants in plaintiff's favor was accepted "payable when the lumber is run to market." Held, in an action upon it, that the parties were entitled to show the circumstances under which it was made, to explain the accept

4. Plaintiff proved that he worked for F. on logs out of which lumber was to be made; that the draft was given in payment for his labor; and that F. sold all his interest in the logs to other parties before the action was commenced. Held, that defendants were then entitled to show an agreement between them and F. at the time of the acceptance, that the lumber from the logs should be delivered to them to be sold for F. Ib.

5. On proof of the fact last mentioned, the acceptance must be held to mean, that defendants would pay the draft when they had run said lumber to market. Ib.

6. Of verbal agreement on making of note.-Evidence of a verbal agreement between the parties to a note, at the time it was made, is admissible to show a partial or total failure of the consideration. Smith v. Carter et al.

7. Thus it might be shown that the note was given in payment for logs cut by payee, and to be delivered by him to the makers, and was put in the hands of a third person with the understanding that he was to pay with funds of the makers all legal claims against said logs (which should be considered a payment upon the note), and that he did pay certain claims of that character; also, that payee did not deliver to the makers all the logs agreed upon; and that a part of those delivered had been cut upon the land of another person, of whom the makers were obliged to purchase them. Ib.

8. Proof of description given of lost property.-In an action against a hotel-keeper for the loss of plaintiff's shawl, the person who acted as plaintiff's agent in making demand for the shawl, having described it as a witness of plaintiff, proof of what he had said in describing it at the time of making such demand was admissible for the defendant as independent evidence. Smith v. Wallace.

9. The fact that such proof also tended to impeach the agent's testimony, and that no proper foundation had been laid for such impeaching evidence, did not render it inadmissible. Ib.

10. Where a new trial was denied, if any legitimate construction of the evidence will support the verdict, this court will not interfere, though it may think the weight of evidence was the other way. Ib.

EXECUTION.

Exemptions.-Section 31, chap. 134, R. S., after enumerating certain animals exempt from sale on execution, etc., also exempts "the necessary food for all the stock mentioned in this section, for one year's support." Held, that this does not exempt food for animals which the debtor does not possess, and has no present purpose of obtaining. Cowan v. Main et al.

GARNISHMENT.

1. Affidavits. - Chapter 200, Laws of 1864, does not require, before the process of garnishment, therein provided for, that an affidavit be filed stating that defendant in the

principal suit is indebted to plaintiff in a certain sum in excess of all legal set-offs, etc. Orton v. Noonan et al. 2. The court has, however, an inherent power to control proceedings upon summary process, so as to prevent abuse. Ib.

3. Where an affidavit of the principal debtor is filed, stating that he is not indebted, etc., plaintiff should be required to furnish evidence to the contrary, at least by his own affidavit, in clear and express terms, of the existence of such indebtedness. Ib.

4. So of those facts which the act does require plaintiff's affidavit to state, if defendant's affidavit explicitly denies them, plaintiff should be required to establish them by further proof, or the process should be discharged. Ib.

5. The party moving for such discharge should serve and file his affidavits therefor, with notice of motion; plaintiff should then be required to file his affidavits by a certain day; and the moving party should then have a specified time for filing further affidavits to controvert any new facts alleged. Ib.

6. Delivery of property to sheriff. — The court may order the money or property in dispute to be paid or delivered by garnishee to the sheriff or clerk, or other officer, to be kept for the person who shall be found entitled thereto; and such order should be made where it appears there is danger of the property being lost or the debt becoming worthless. Ib.

Substituted liability. The city of Watertown issued its bonds in aid of the Milwaukee and Watertown R. R. Co., which guarantied their payment. Afterward that company became consolidated, in pursuance of law, with the Milwaukee and La Crosse R. R. Co., which subsequently sold the Watertown division of its road (including what had previously been owned by the Milwaukee and Watertown Co.), to a third corporation, which sold it to the defendant. Held, that while the guaranty of said bonds became part of the general indebtedness of the Milwaukee and La Crosse Co., after the consolidation, defendant, as purchaser from it of the Watertown division of its road, is not liable for any part of such indebtedness. Wright v. Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co.

HIGHWAY.

1. Dedication. - An acceptance by the town officers is not necessary to constitute a highway by dedication, but travel thereon by the public, to such an extent and for such a length of time as to show that the public convenience requires the road, is sufficient; and this time may be less than ten years. DIXON, C. J., dissents. Buchanan v. Curtis et al.

2. Proof of the owner's declarations, as well after the alleged dedication as at the time thereof, is admissible to show that there was no intention to dedicate. Ib.

3. Defects in way. — Objects within the limits of a highway naturally calculated to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness may constitute such defects in the way as to render the town liable, even though so far removed from the trayeled path as to avoid all danger of collision. Foshay v. Town of Glen Haven.

4. An instruction "that an object existing within the limits of the highway, but leaving the traveled path unobstructed, so that the traveler is safe from collision with it, is not an insufficiency in the way, merely because it exposes the traveler's horse to become frightened at the sight of it, and the town in such case would not be liable;" held,

1. Continued compliance with conditions. How far the plaintiff in an action on an insurance policy must in the first instance introduce proof of a continued compliance on his part with all its provisions, quære. May et al. v. Buckeye Mutual Ins. Co.

2. A policy of insurance was issued upon a factory which was only run during a part of the year, and the answers to the company's printed interrogatories, stating the use of the building and the precautions observed against fire, were such as, from their nature, were appropriate only to the time during which the mill was run, and the agent who issued the policy was made fully aware of the facts, and himself filled up the application and wrote down such portions of the applicant's statements as he considered important. Held, that the company, even if it had not expressly made itself responsible for the agent's accuracy, could not avoid liability for a loss incurred during the season when the factory was stopped, on the ground that the answers in the application were warranties that the same state of things should continue during the life of the policy. Ib.

3. Survey. The policy in this case, after stating what the application must contain, and that any false description by the assured, or omission to make known any fact material to the risk, shall render said policy void, adds: "But the company will be responsible for the accuracy of surveys made by its agents." Held, that the word "survey "must here be construed to include the whole application, when made out by the agent, and the company is thus expressly precluded from taking advantage of his inaccuracy or omission in drawing the same, where the facts have been fully stated to him by the assured. Ib. 4. Parol evidence is admissible in such a case, to show that the agent, in filling out the application, did not accurately and fully state the answers of the assured. Ib. (Concluded next week.)

APPOINTMENTS BY THE GOVERNOR,

BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. Notaries Public confirmed March 18, 1870:

City and County of New York, Re-appointments-Christian Angele, Chester A. Arthur, Bernard Amend, Francis B. Autz, George Ashforth, Wm. H. Burrell, James A. Byrnes, Charles E. Brown, Julius Binge, Charles E. Bogert, Wm. W. Brackett, Wm. Boeckkl, Herman F. Bower, Elie Bonin, Morris J. Bennett, Lawrence Burke, James L. Berrien, Robert T. Bailey, Wm. H. Barker, Henry G. Banks, J. Romaine Brown, John Bouton, Wm. A. Boyd, Seymour A. Bunce, Wm. Brourton, Alexander Blumenstiel, Vincent Clark, William Coddington, Francis J. Campbell, Jr., John M. Costa, Leonard J. Carpenter, Andrew B. Chalmers, George W. Collis, Calvin R. Cheever, Charles W. Dayton, William H. Davis, James L. Dayton, George Degener, David Davis, John Drake, James Sidney Douglas, Joseph W. Dugliss, Arthur J, Delaney, J. Albert Englehart, Edmund Elmendorf, Jr., Lewis L. Ettinger, Alexander M. Eagleston, Wm. A. Eydam, Myer Elsas, Thos. L. Feitner, Joseph P. Fallon, John R. Farmington, Wm. T. Graff, John Gautier, Jr., John V. Gridley, John F. Gray, William F. Gilley, Richard C. Greene, Charles E. Gildersleeve, Harrison C. Gibson, Chas. A. L. Goldey, Peter James Gage, Edward Gebhard, James S. Greves, John Hayes, Patrick J. Hanburg, John H. Harnett, Wm. Hibbard, Edward B. Heath, John R. Hackett, James W. Hale, William A. Herring, John Hayes, George Hillier, George H. Hansen, Louis P. Kircheis, William H. Kipp, Joseph Koch, Hale Kingsley, De Lancy W. Knevels, Wm. W. Kipp, Thomas B. Kingsland, John D. Krehbeil, Chas. P. Kirkland, Hugo P. Koelker, Charles H. Ketchel, Edgar Ketchum, Jr., Charles W. Kruger, Wm. Lindsay, Edward

V. Loew, Joseph C. Levi, William Lee, Jandine Lyng, Smith E. Lane, William F. Lett, Florence Leary, Daniel Learny, Julius S. Lyons, Philip Merkle, Henry H. Morange, Henry Maurer, Thomas Marterson, Maximillian Morgenthan, Otts Meyer, James D. McClelland, Abraham Moses, Wm. H. Melick, David P. McBreen, George B. Morris, Benjamin A. Moran, David McAdams, Edward A. Moore, James M. Macgregor, James Marriner, Wm. T. McGrath, Henry McCabe, Daniel H. McDonnell, Robert A. Morrison, Patrick H. McDonough, Wm. F. McNamara, John D. McGregor, Thomas McSpeddon, Robert McCofferty, Alexander H. Nones, Wm. A. Neschke, Joseph B. Nones, Sylvester E. Nolan, Washington R. Nichols, Edw. A. Nichols, John R. Nelson, Charles Nanz, James A. Oliveli, Wm. C. O'Brien, Francis V. S. Oliver, Thomas B. Osborne, Thomas W. Pittman, Jonas N. Phillips, Edward M. Plum, John A. Peritz, J. Augustus Page, Charles Price, Michael Phillips, John H. Porter, Wm. H. Richards, Lyman Rindskoff, Henry F. Ranney, Bernard Reilly, J. Leander Starr, Isaac Schreiber, Charles L. D. Spethoff, John E. Sweezey, George G. Sickles, Orlando P. Smith, Wm. W. Smith, John Stevenson, Wm. Schneider, Wm. A. Smalley, Jacob Seebacher, J. Raymond Smith, Jacob P. Solomon, Stephen N. Simonson, Ebenezer B. Shafer, Andrew J. Smith, Philip F. Smith, Nicholas Seagrist, Alva Spear, Charles Tillotson, Samuel W. Tuttle, Wm. H. Tracey, John A. Thompson, Wm. H. Tillotson, James Brainard Taylor, George M. Van Hoesen, Theodore S. Van Cott, Wm, B. Vandersmith, James M. Varnum, A. V. W. Van Vechter, R. Harwood Vernon, Richard T. Van Boskerck, Chas. M. Vanderwoost, Albert S. Whittaker, James E Wheeler, Robert Wakefield, Samuel T. Webster, Chas. M. Willey, J. Wade Wilson, Hezekiah Watkins, Elbert A. Woodward, Benjamin A. Willis, Daniel Whalen, Joseph T. Webster, George Chalmers, James A. Colvin, Lucius S. Comstock, Adam Gos.

Kings County. - Re-appointments - Moritz Augentine, Seth B. Cole, Amzi B. Davenport, Abraham H. Dailey, James Eschwege, James R. Fairman, Wm. E. Goudge, Henry W. Honeywell, Theodore F. Jackson, Robert R. Lee, Thomas McCarty, Wm. Sullivan, Samuel Wagoner, Jr., Benjamin F. French, Thomas Cotrel.

Albany County. - New appointments - George R. Ten Broeck, Richard A. Southwick. Cayuga County. Re-appointments Edward C. Marvine, Charles A. Myers, Josiah N. Starin, Corydon H. Merriman.

New appointments- -Daniel O. Baker, George M. Watson, George D. Lanehart, D. M. Dunning, Joseph H. Parker, Wm. Davis, Sylvester W. Treat, Henry A. Maynard, Wm. H. Talor, Darwin C. Knapp.

Broome County. - Re-appointments - Charles M. Dickinson, Barna R. Johnson, Samuel W. Rogers.

New appointments-Judson M. Spaulding, Andrew J. Butts, Asabel Cummings, John N. Ring.

Niagara County. Re-appointments - Joshua Haskill, Anthony McGee, John Hodge.

New appointments-Jerre A. Gladding, Horatio Kilburn.

Onondaga County. - Re-appointments- John P. Ballard, Edgar W. Marsh, John L. Rochner, Amasa H. Jerome, Horace H. Walpole, Geo. Doheny, H. C. Leavenworth, Christian Freeoff, Wm. G. Tracey, Chas. T. Hicks, Benj. S. Gregory, Henry J. Hubbard, Henry Babcock, Edwin R. Plumb, Geo. B. Leonard, Levi H. Ballard, J. Henry Benedict, R. A. Banta.

New appointments-Harlow De Wolf, Jacob A. Nottingham, Howard H. Edwards, Frank P. Hale, H. L. Darling, Mars Nearing, Milton H. Northrup, James S. Plumb, Napoleon B. Boughton, John C. Keefe, Andrew T. Gilmor, Clarence S. Safford, W. P. Love, Gould N. Lewis, W. Otto Weirkotten, George B. Warner, Damon Coats, Benoni Lee, Stephen L. Rockwell.

Fulton County. - Re-appointment-Ashley D. L. Baker. Queens County. - Re-appointment- L. Bradford Prince, Elias J. Beach, Isaac Coles, William. W. Berger, John W. DeMott.

New appointments-John Ruland, W. R. Burling, Frederick O. Merkle, Samuel D. Roe, Wm. H. Onderdonk, Alex. Moran, Geo. W. Furman, John W. Furman, John Fleming, Henry B. Price, John H. Reed, Oliver Losea. Jefferson County. - New appointments-Samuel T. Potter, Phelenzo Norton.

Genesee County. - New appointment-R. W. Watson. Orleans Connty. - New appointment-Thomas O. Castle. Allegany County. - Re-appointments-J. S. Norton, Julius Hayt.

New appointments-M. L. Butler, William Richardson, W. Otis Osborn, Levi A. Reynolds, Wm. P. Brooks.

Rockland County.-Re-appointments - Andrew Fallon, Thomas E. Blanch, Anthony D. Morford, Edward Suffern. Putnam County. — Re-appointments-Edwin A. Pelton, Ambrose Ryder, Cyrus E. Nelson, Daniel Baker, William D. Garrison, Sexton Smith, Amzi L. Dean, George Luddington.

New appointments-Le Ray Barnum, John H. Perry, Charles H. Ferris.

Notaries Public confirmed March 23, 1870: Chenango County. - New appointment - Melville Keyes. Fulton County.- New appointment -- Hubert A. Wood. Yates County.- Re-appointments-Spencer S. Raplee, James V. Van Allen, Aaron R. McLean, Morris Brown. New appointments-Chas. D. Davis, Michael A. Leary, Geo. R. Youngs, John Sutherland, Jacob Van Derventer,

Israel H. Arnold, Martin J. Sunderlin, James C. Beddoe, Oliver S. Williams.

Ontario County.- New appointment - Lindley W. Smith. Essex County.-New appointment - Marshall Shedd, Jr. Orange County.-Re-appointments.-Jno. C. Noe, Thomas C. Ring, Wickham T. Shaw, James N. Dickey, M. C. Belknap, John Baldwin, O. Young, Lewis E. Carr, John T. Johnson, Wm. M. Murray, M. Cooper, Wm. H. Birchard, James B. Hulse, Henry M. McQuaid, Henry A. Wadsworth, John Mullock.

New appointments.- Arthur Wilson, Nehemiah Fowler, Gerald Howardrop, Eugene A. Brewster, John W. Bushfield, A. Dubois Staats, Geo. Elmendorf, Geo. A. Guernsey, Wm. L. Graham, John P. Sears, Chas. L. Woodward.

Washington County.-Reappointments-Sam'l M. Burke, Lewis Potter, Wm. M. Keith, James Thompson, Silas P. Pike, Thos. McClaughry, David V. T. Qua, Marinus Fairchild, Edward H. Gibson, Peter Holbrook, Wm. A. Russell, Jr., E. H. Orcutt, Wm. P. Robertson.

Erie County.-Re-appointments - Aaron Rogers, Hiram H. Smith, Wm. H. Slade, James Seveney, James Sheldon, Francis Schmale, Henry S. Sprague, Wm. L. G. Smith, Amos B. Tanner, Edmund B. Vedder, Tobias Wilmer, Thomas B. Wright, S. H. Wortman, Daniel E Waite, E. R. Bacon, Samuel D. Johnson, S. B. Thompson, John M. Laughlin, James M. Gallagher.

New appointments-J. H. Giltere, Wm. W. Hammond, Edward C. Hawks, George F. Haywood, Charles Huetter, Darius A. Hoovey, Chauncey J. Hastings, Henry D. Keller, Henry Koons, Chas. W. Kreatzer, Benjamin H. Long, John R. Lee, John G. Langner, S. R. Myers, Price A. Matteson, Philip Miller, Alex. Martin, Bernard H. Muehler, Louis D. Voltz, Geo. Newbrook, James W. Otts, Nicholas Ottenot, John H. Parsons, M. Pinner, John J. P. Read, John L. Romer, Leo M. Ritt, Gregory Ritt, S. Cary Adams, W. D. Allen, Wm. R. Allen, Henry Atwood, Otts Besser, Jas. C. Beecher, George Burt, Dirck-V. Benedict, William S. Bull, George Bigelow, Henry W. Burt, Chas. H. Bailey, Conrad Baer, Curtis H. Bates, Bela H. Colegrove, John Ä. Case, Asa Covell, Fred'k L. Danforth, David P. Dobbins, Ebenezer P. Dow, Joseph B. Dick, Jno. G. Dayton, Aaron W. Eggert, Joseph E. Ewell, James H. Fisher.

Rensselaer County.- Re-appointments -William Hagen, Martin L. Townsend, Alvah Traver, John R. Kellogg, Francis Tim, Richardson H. Thurman, Silas K. Stow, Albert E. Wooster, Edward Babcock, John F. Calder, Rufus M. Townsend, Cole H. Denio, Henry C. Lockwood, Jared E. Bacon, Henry D. C. Osborn, Calvin E. Keach, Jonathan Denison, H. Drum, Alex. Walsh, Hastings Kellogg, Nelson Webster, Sidney S. Congdon, Wm. R. Scriven, Eber W. Carmichael, Randall A. Brown.

New appointments- Daniel W. Ford, Chas, D. Kellum, Michael S. Manning, Chas. H. Roberts, John H. O'Brien, John Hudson Peck, George H. Sagendorf, J. Edgar Hoag, George Barber, James Dongrey, Albert C. Comstock, Wm. Hand, Sylvester Waterbury, James A. Kennedy, Leonard R. Saunders, Jared A. Wells, Charles R. Lindsey.

Warren County.-Re-appointment - Henry Philo.
New appointments - John L. Weatherhead, H. Wood.
Notaries Public confirmed March 24, 1870:

New York County.- Charles Albert, Enoch Armitage, Joseph Bell, Gottleb Bollett, Charles J. Breck, Samuel P. Bell, Edward C. Cook, Charles Dowd, George Elliot, Jr., Frederick Frech, William F. Flannelly, Frederick Hess, Clarence M. Hyde, Isaac H. Hall, Charles E. Hyatt, John Hageman, Jr., Geo. E. Jenkins, Edward H. Kent, John H. Kaiser, Jr., Peter Lux, Joseph A. Nessler, William H. Post, Henry Parsons, George N. Pratt, William C. Reddy, Michael J. Russell, James A. Ruthven, A. Lathen Smith, Frank C. Bowman, Thomas G. Baker, Allan Cooper, James L. Crittenden, William L. Gardiner, Isaac N. Gilbert, Cornelius Van Voorhies, Dudley R. P. Wilcox, James W. Carins, Albert G. Thorp, Jr.

Madison County. - Wallace E. Burdick, De Witt C. Fox, Gilbert Birdsall, William W. Campbell, Edwin C. Green, Thomas Barlow, Daniel Gates, William E. Fiske, B. Franklin Chapman, David H. Rasbach, Theodore F. Hand, Everett S. Card, D. Belford West, Charles Stebbins, Jr., Lorenzo D. Dana, Dennis Hardin, Thomas Crandall, Clarence Carskadden, Samuel L. Conde, Edwin J. Brown, Morgan L. Brown, Ezekiel P. More, Thomas T. Loomis, Henry K. W. Bruce, Thomas F. Petrie. Albany County.- Mayer H. Cohen.

Dutchess County.-A. M. Card, Charles Gregory, Egbert Vincent, Andrew Cole, William R. Smith. Orleans County. - George H. Porter. Herkimer County. - Clinton A. Moon. Cayuga County." -William Slade, Jr. Lewis County.-S. Albert Johnson.

Orange County. - Samuel E, Derrick, Chas. B. Halstead, Lewis F. Corwin.

Wyoming County.-L. Lockwood Thayer, Gideon H. Jenkins, Byron Payne, Henry S. Joy, William F. S. Agett, Lyman S. Coleman, R. H. Steadman, John P. Robinson. Onondaga County. - James Rogers.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

Mr. David Dudley Fieid, of New York, appeared a few days since before the Judiciary Committee to urge some changes in existing laws. Coming from such a source, his suggestions are entitled to careful consideration. His remarks were in substance as follows:

"When the Legislature is asked to act in respect to an alleged evil, the first thing is to learn what the evil is, and then to seek the remedy. The reproach which has been cast upon our courts is some of it deserved, but much of it undeserved. The judiciary of this State is in the main learned, faithful, and upright. The evils which do exist can, for the most part, be remedied by the Legislature and by the united action of a majority of the judges, though some are inseparable from the judicial system established by the Constitution. In respect to the administration of civil justice, the evils complained of are delays, conflicts of authority, abuse of injunctions and receiverships, and judicial patronage in the appointment of referee. The delays are without excuse, except in the Court of Appeals. That court can never do all the work now put upon it. The bar and the community must make up their minds to restrict appeals to certain classes of cases, or the new court will be overwhelmed, as the last has been. But in the Supreme Court there is no reason whatever for delay. There are judges enough for all the work if they would act in concert, those of one district assisting those of another.

CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION.

"The conflicts of jurisdiction are easy to be avoided by the judges themselves. The only legislation to this endwhich appears desirable is a return to that provision of the Code as it was originally passed, which declared the designation of judges to hold the courts shall be such as that not more than one-half nor less than one-fourth of the courts to which each shall be assigned, shall be held out of the district within which he was elected.' This provision was allowed to stand but a short time, and the judges now confine themselves chiefly to the districts in which they are elected, though they are judges for the whole State, and the design of the Constitution and the law is that they should circulate through it. Let the judges elected in the First district go to other parts of the State for at least one-fourth of their time, and let the judges from the other districts come to us. In this way the disintegration of the court, which has been going on ever since it was established, will be stopped, and the evil of local influences and associations will be proportionately avoided. The judges themselves have failed to meet in conventions for several years-I think twelve, though the Code requires them to meet every two years for the revision of the rules. But if the Legislature will restore the provisions of the Code which I have mentioned, and the judges will meet next August to revise the rules, they can effectually prevent conflicts of jurisdiction hereafter.

ABUSE OF INJUNCTIONS.

"The abuse of injunctions consists in their being carelessly granted ex parte. The complaint is not of late date, but is almost coeval with courts of equity. The scope of the power was restricted by the Code, but the number of those who could exercise equity jurisdiction being increased by the Constitution, the use of the process was increased, and with it the risk of carelessness in the using. Observe by what gradations the abuse has come to its present state. The first great step was in the Broadway railway case, where an injunction against an act by a common council to expire with 1852, was granted ex parte on the 27th of December, with an order to show cause on the second Monday of January, 1853, why it should not be made perpetual. This injunction was applauded by the whole community, and the members of the common council were fined or imprisoned for passing an ordinance in violation of it, though one of the judges of the Court of Appeals began a subsequent opinion upon another branch of the litigation, with this sentence: Not among the least striking and anomalous characteristics of this case is the earnestness and tenacity with which judicial power in every stage of it has been asserted and maintained.' The next step was in the street commissioners' controversy of 1857, where conflicting injunctions were issued by the Supreme Court and Common Pleas. Then came the Metropolitan Police controversy, which was begun by an ex parte injunction restraining the execution of an act of the Legislature. This led to a message from Gov. King to the Legislature, recommending that injunctions should only be granted upon notice. I drew and urged upon the Judiciary Committee some provisions, with a view to remedy the abuse, but I met with no success. The railway litigations of the last three years have brought out ex parte injunctions, if not more objectionable in themselves, yet more palpable in their objectionable features. Three remedies have occurred to me-one to restrict the power of granting ex parte injunctions to one judge in each district, to be selected by his brethren; another is to provide that each ex parte injunction shall contain a provision that the party enjoined may apply on two days' notice to vacate it, and forthwith upon such application the injunction must be continued, modified, or discharged.