different to the lady's sufferings, observing that a person accepting employment in such premises, unless the master has contracted to light them, " must make his choice whether he will pass along the floor in the dark or carry a light." That case lays down very doubtful law, was questioned in Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 410, and seems contrary to the trend of modern adjudications. Miss Seymour ought to have been a "star," or else to have carried some x-rays with her. Earning One's Salary. — Some of the citizens and tax-payers of St. Louis seem determined that their mayor shall earn his salary. It appears that the mayor is a frequent absentee, and that when he goes away on private business the president of the Coun cil acts as mayor and draws salary as such; notwith standing which the mayor insists on having his full salary paid. The suit is for an injunction restraining the city treasurer from paying the mayor his salary during the time he has been absent, the amount in volved being $1,117.37. So far as we know, this is a completely novel case, and its outcome will be awaited with a good deal of interest. Although it might be difficult to " dock" the salary of such an official on account of his absence from the post of duty, yet there seems no good reason for paying another for the service which he owes, and in paying him also for it. It will probably turn out that there is a weakness in the city charter or ordinances which does not prohibit such double pay, for very few mu nicipalities have foresight enough to foresee that their servants will neglect their duties.
Punishment for Contempt. — Some news comes from the west which will greatly encourage all friends of law and order in this country. Several months ago it was recorded that Chief-Justice Snodgrass, of the Tennessee Supreme Court, had introduced a novel and summary, but what promised to be a very effect ive method of punishing contempts of court or of the magistrates as individuals. A lawyer had " sauced" him in a newspaper, and the Chief-Justice pulled out his gun and shot him on the street. Fortunately he was a bad shot, and so he did not kill him, but only wounded him to a cautionary extent. A grand jury, utterly blind to every instinct of honor, forgetful of the reverence due the Bench, and not making sufficient allowance for the insufferable nature of the provoca tion, had the bad taste to consider the Chief-Justice as a criminal, and to subject him to the mortification of an indictment for assault with intent to murder, and to the indignity of being dragged to the bar like an ordinary felon, and standing trial as if he were merely the occupant of a cobbler's bench. The result
is exactly what might have been predicted of that lionhearted and sensitive people among whom he dwells — he was acquitted. The ground of acquittal has not reached us. Probably it was not on the ground of insanity, for his omission so to resent the insult put upon him would have been more apt, among his chivalric constituency, to have aroused the suspicion of insanity. It was probably on the common, but not very distinctly legal ground of " sarve him right." And so it did. The lawyer, instead of writing against him in a newspaper, and thus affording grounds of legal relief, ought to have picked a quarrel with him and raised a duel. There may be reasonable fears that other grave magistrates in civilized countries will not have the courage to adopt Chief-Justice Snodgrass' efficient mode of dealing with impudent lawyers. It would excite surprise to see Chief-Justice Fuller or Lord Chief-Justice Russell engaging in this argumentum ad hominem. It will probably remain the choice and peculiar flower of Tennessee civilization, planted by the magistrate and fostered by the jury. "All flesh is grass," said the prophet. Let us re joice that all flesh is not Snodgrass!
"Extraordinary Cases."— A comely volume, under this title, from the press of Harpers, presents the recollections of Mr. Henry Lauren Clinton of his legal practice. He is well known to New York peo ple as an experienced, ingenious, devoted and suc cessful practitioner, especially in criminal cases. The author has defended in about one hundred murder cases, and has had but one client hanged. The book is very readable and is in good taste and admirable reserve. We have read it all, except two long speeches to the jury, which are given in full, and into these we have glanced sufficiently to satisfy our selves that like most effective appeals to the jury, they are not good reading, and that the rhetoric is occa sionally a little lurid. But Mr. Clinton's account of the legal phases of the important cases in which he has been counsel is interesting and frequently very suggestive and useful. His reminiscences and sketches of the great men of the early New York Bar are exceedingly entertaining, and much of this is quite fresh. Mr. Clinton's power of description and his sense of humor are marked. He conveys a good deal that is new, curious and amusing about Brady, Clark, Cutting, Gerard, Graham, Edmunds, Jones, Oakley, Ogden Hoffman, O'Conor, Ogden, Jordan, John Van Buren, Blunt, Ira Harris, Henry E. Davies, Horace Greeley, Daniel Webster and others. He gives one anecdote of Webster and Walworth about which we find ourselves skeptical, for we cannot believe that the interrupting Chancellor was ever awed into silence by anybody or anything short of
