vent any social intercourse between the families, unless Mrs. Kitson would either consent to go away from London to live or would assure him that she had had intercourse with her husband within three months, a fact that Dr. 1'layfair considered to be impossible, as Mr. Kitson had been out of England for several years. Mrs. Kitson plead ed that time be given to her in order that she might com municate with her husband, but Dr. Playfair refused, and, as Mrs. Kitson determined not to go away from London, he informed his wife, who in turn told her brother, Sir James, what had occurred. In consequence of the com munication, Sir James withdrew an allowance of ^400 a year which he had been paying to Mrs. Kitson, leaving her totally destitute. It was for this statement that Mrs. Kitson brought her action against the Playfairs for libel and slander. The doctor pleaded that he had never made the statement in question (but subsequently abandoned this line of defence), and, further, that it was made as a matter of duty, to protect his wife and children, without malice and in an honest belief that it was true, thus claiming priv ilege for it. He did not claim justification, and therefore the court refused evidence as to whether or not the state ment was true, although Dr. Playfair insisted that he not only believed that it was true at the time, but that no medi cal authority could shake his faith in his own judgment. On the other hand another eminent physician swore that the facts of the case did not warrant the judgment which Dr. Playfair and Dr. Williams had formed about them. In the end, and after a very long review of the whole question of what constitutes privilege by the judge, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £,ooo, or $60,000, — an enormous sum and one which if capitalized would yield about what Mrs. Kitson had lost in the withdrawal of her allowance by Sir James. Very little has been added to the law on the subject of privilege by this trial and the judg ment, but it is very doubtful if fashionable physicians hereafter will give their professional confidences to their wives and the other members of their families. It is announced here thai the Lord Chief-Justice has ac cepted the invitation of the American Bar Association to attend its next annual meeting at Saratoga Springs in August, and that he will be accompanied by Sir Frank Lotkwood, Q. C, M. P., Mr. Montague Crackenthorpe, Q. (_'., and Mr. James Fox. This is not the first visit of I.ord Russell to the United States, as he visited America in the company of the late Lord Chief-Justice. He will, of
course, be heartily welcome, and I am confident that he will make a capital impression among his hosts. He has not the courtly grace and the extreme suaviter in modo which distinguished Lord Coleridge, but he has the bear ing and dignity of a judge, while at the same time he has not yet been long enough on the bench to lose that pecu liar charm of advocacy which made him one of the most sought-after and successful jury lawyers the Fnglish liar has ever known. In Sir Frank Lockwood he will have a fitting companion. As an after-dinner or a platform speaker, Sir Frank is quite the equal of I .ord Russell. He is full of humor and anecdote, and of so jovial a nature that the public is not always inclined to take him seriously even when he desires to be most impressive. He is besides one of the conspicuous successes of the Bar, and has as much work as any leader on the common law side, Sir Edward Clarke, of course, al ways excepted. In Mr. Montague Crackenthorpe you will see a typical chancery lawyer, in figure, address and keen ness of intellect. He came to the bar nearly forty years ago with a studentship, and has been a student ever since. He has the social grace well developed also, and is m many respects a fit companion for the other two almost incompar able ambassadors from the English to the American liar. The English Parliament does not try election petitions, but remits them to the courts for determination. So far, growing out of the elections last year, there have been eight petitions decided by the courts, and as two judges sit, and the proceedings are strung out to interminable length, great inconvenience has been experienced in getting through the regular litigation. One of these petitions, that of IJenn v. Marks, has already extended over forty days, and promises to drag on for another fortnight. The defeated candidate brought nearly 150 charges against his successful rival, who as a sort of moral counterclaim filed a recriminating charge. The judges have decided in favor of the silting member on the petition and on the recriminating charge also; and now there is to be a scrutiny of the ballots. The costs thus far are upwards of $150,000, the leader on Marks' side getting a " refresher " of $200 a day, and on Benn's side Si 50. In addition to these leaders there are two jun iors on each side who have likewise to be daily " refreshed,'• besides solicitors and witnesses without number. The judges have intimated that they consider the matter of costs in these cases little short of a scandal. Stuff Gown.
