222
on the final appeal extends to twenty-three hundred pages. Lawyers' Sports. — An appropriate supplement to a recent paragraph in this Chair on " Legal High Jinks " may be found in an account in the " London Law Journal" of " Chess in the Inns of Court." In old days it was the fashion to play checkers in the bar-rooms of country taverns, and now it seems the fashion to play chess in the bar-rooms of the Inns of Court, the more aristocratic nature of the game being suited to the superior dignity of the buildings. The Benchers of the Inns and Middle Temple gave a chess entertainment, in which professional and ama teur players participated. The Lord Chief Justice, "with a number of ladies and other persons of dis tinction," was present. One professional played against thirty-one separate opponents simultaneously, and won a majority of the games. Consultation games were played by Templars. "Wot games!" as Sam Weller would say. From a recent number of the " Canadian Law Times " we learn that in Ontario attendance for two years at the law school at Toronto is exacted from candidates for the Bar, and that the students are demanding a gymnasium. The " Times" says : — "We understand that a petition has been presented by the students of the Law School to the Benchers of the Law Society, asking that they utilize the third story of the Law School as, and lit it up for, the purposes of a gymnasium. We trust sincerely that the petition will he granted. Xo mure popular and worthy act could he done for the school then to provide the means of exercise and enjoyment for the students. The Benchers will readily see that the con ditions of to-day are entirely different from those of a few years ago. Under the old system there was no compulsion to attend at Toronto except for examinations. Students who preferred to study in Toronto came here voluntarily. Under the present conditions it is compulsory on all students to spend at least two years in attendance at the Law School. They are gathered together in a small society by the Benchers, and we conceive that it will not be disputed that the responsibilities of the Benchers do not end with the mere instruction in law." If a candidate for the Bar is required to attend a law school, by all means give him a " gym." At the same time one must wonder how so many good lawyers have been produced without law schools or gvmnasiums. Imagine Grover Cleveland trotting around the course or Kvarts swinging on the trapeze!
NOTES OF CASES Impounding Exhibits. — A novel case is New berry v. Carpenter, Supreme Court of Michigan (Dec, 1895, 65 X. W. R., 530). A steam boiler ex ploded on the premises of relator, completely wreck
ing the building, causing the death of 37 persons, and injury to others. The calamity was alleged to have been caused by the criminal negligence of the engineer. The Circuit Judge of the district, on mo tion of the prosecuting attorney, ordered the boiler and engine into the custody of the police, but not to be removed from the premises, to be used as evi dence on the contemplated trial of the engineer for manslaughter. The Supreme Court, on a petition for mandamus (McGrath, C.J., dissenting), held that the order of the Circuit Judge was without authority of law and must be set aside. It was shown that the owner of the building, although charged with no crime, was threatened with civil suits for damages on the ground of negligence. "Not only therefore is she by this order deprived of her private property, which she may desire to use in her business, but may be deprived of the evidence which may establish her innocence of any fault." This seems to be a case in which evidence of the condition of the boiler by experts was feasible and competent, and would answer a better purpose than an exhibition and inspection of the boiler. There can be no doubt that the State has a right to im pound exhibits for use as evidence in criminal cases, but it seems reasonable to limit the exercise of the power to cases where it will not result in serious de privation of property rights. If a man were accused of murder, the State might unquestionably possess itself of his shoes in order to fit them to footprints, but it is extremely doubtful whether it might turn him out of his house or shop, the alleged scene of the crime, and take exclusive possession of it for purposes of evidence. The right of search would answer every purpose .
Injunction". — Benefit Exceeding Injury. — The New York Court of Appeals, in a very recent case, O'Reilly 7'. Xew York Elevated Company, held that where the plaintiff had suffered discomfort and annoyance from the operation of the defendant's road by deprivation of light, air and access, but that a general benefit had been produced by the presence of the road, in which the plaintiff's property partici pated, and that the plaintiff had suffered no substan tial loss in consequence of its construction and opera tion, equitable relief would not be granted. On the doctrine of injunction to restrain trespass, the Court quoted Chancellor Kent, in Jerome v. Ross, 7 Johns. Ch.315: — "I do not think it advisable, upon any principle of jus tice or policy, to introduce the chancery remedy as its sub stitute, except in strong and aggravated instances of tres pass, which go to the destruction of the inheritance, or where the mischief is remediless. I do not know a case in which an injunction has been granted to restrain a tres
