Some Peculiarities of French Legal Procedure. when the ram of Spaulding attacked and injured her. It was shown that the ram had a ram-like propensity to butt mankind, and that the defendant knew it; but it did not appear whether the previous buttings of the ram proceeded from an ugly disposition or out of the abundance of playful spirit. Yet it was held that the defendant was liable. It would not cure the hurt nor assuage the pain of the woman to be told that the ram, when he butted her, was only in one of his accustomed sportive moods. It might have been fun for the ram, but it was hurtful to Mrs. Oakes. It was a mischievous propen sity, whether proceeding from ugliness of temper or good nature, which, if known to the owner of the ram, made him liable for damages resulting from such propensity. The report of the last case throws no light on the nature of the injuries sustained. The damages recovered amounted to $1,500. The question that presented itself after
79
reading it was how were the damages meas ured? It would certainly make a consider able difference as to the direction toward which the ram projected itself — front, side, or rear. A forward somersault should be less expensive than one backwards, and a double one should bring just twice the price of a single one. The angle of curvatures of the horns of that particular ram might have had much to do with the measure of damages. The character of the butting would be an important element. A hop, skip and jump, throwing one across a quarteracre lot, ought to have brought more money than a steady pushing across a field. • An unexpected delivery ought to have brought a better sum than taking one on the fly. The numerical quantity of the buttings might have come at so much a hit. An itemized statement of the $1,500 damages would certainly have been interesting.
SOME PECULIARITIES OF FRENCH LEGAL PROCEDURE. THE trial of the assassin of President Carnot has been made by cable de spatches as widely known to the American public as that of Guiteau was to Europeans; and in each case the differing and somewhat antagonistic modes of procedure produced surprise and comment. The first striking peculiarity of a French prosecution to an American is its procedure upon the initial ideas that an accused must prove his inno cence, and is compelled to become a witness in his own case against himself. At the time of Guiteau's trial Parisian journalists ex pressed surprise at the impartial spirit of the Federal prosecution of a dastard who had assassinated the head of a nation. They also could not understand why, as in France, prosecutions were not directly impressed
throughout by the power and majesty of the Government. For in France actions, whether civil or criminal, must have in atten dance besides judges and procureurs or pri vate advocates some official who represents directly the Minister of Justice and has certain defined responsibilities of interference with the trials. The Dictionnaire d'Admi nistration, article Ministtre publie, thus re cites : " The French Government maintains a constant and regular supervision over the administration of justice by means of the Ministtre public — a state department, mem bers of which sit in every Court throughout France to represent there the cause of public order and the interests of society in gen eral." As regards criminal prosecutions these representative members differ little
