« AnteriorContinuar »
existed independent of it, and could not be taken Pennsylvania court, a similar question arose, and it away. The principle governing the case is stated | was held that the death of the member did not by Judge Cooley (Const. Lim. 362) thus: “A vested revoke any of the rules applied to membership. In right of action is property in the same sense in the case of Hyde v. Woods, 15 Alb. L. J. 435, decided which tangible things are property, and is equally by the United States Supreme Court, it was held protected from arbitrary interference. Where it that a provision similar to that contained in the springs from contract or from the principles of the principal case was valid, and the carrying out of it common law, it is not competent for the legislature in the case of an insolvent member was not a prefto take it away." See, also, Bedford v. Schilling, 4 erence under the bankrupt law. The same conS. & R. 401; Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 334; Bigeloro clusion was reached in Nicholson v. Gouch, 5 E. & B. v. Pritchard, 21 Pick. 174; New Cent. Coal Co. v. 999. These cases do not fall within the principle G. C. Coal Co., 37 Md. 557; Grenough v. Grenough, that the jurisdiction of the courts cannot be ousted 11 Penn. St. 489; Steamship Co. v. Jolippe, 2 Wall. by contract. See Scott v. Avery, 5 H. of L. 382; 459. In Girdner v. Stephens, 1 Heisk. 280; 2 Am. Nicholls v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716. Rep. 700, it was held that, after a cause of action had been barred by a statute of limitation, the de- ! The case of Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Mullifendant had a vested right to rely upon such statute | gan, 45 Md. 486, was an action against a railroad as a defense, and that neither a State constitutional
company for negligently killing a cow belonging to convention nor a legislature had the power to revive | Mulligan, the plaintiff below, and the defense was the right to maintain the action. See, to the same
contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in effect, Yancy v. Yancy, 13 Am. Rep. 5.
permitting the cow to stray on to defendant's track.
The court, however, held the defense not available, Several actions with respect to seats in stock ex- saying that the best considered decisions, both in change boards, and involving a curious question of England and here, hold the law to be, in such a law, have recently been adjudicated in the courts. case, that mere negligence or want of ordinary care The latest one is Thompson v. Adams, decided on on the part of plaintiff will not preclude his right the 27th of October last, by the Philadelphia Court to recover, provided the defendant might, by the of Common Pleas, and reported in a late number of exercise of ordinary care on his part, have avoided the Legal Intelligencer. The plaintiff gave to his part- | the consequences of the neglect or carelessness of the ner in the stock brokerage business $1,000 to pur- plaintiff. Upholding this rule, see Butterfield v. Forchase a seat in the Philadelphia Board of Brokers, rester, 11 East, 60, where it is said that “one person an unincorporated association for the purpose of being in fault will not dispense with another's using facilitating the buying and selling of stocks, gov | ordinary care for himself;" Davies v. Mann, 5 M. & erned by a constitution and by-laws. The partner W. 546, where Lord Abinger said: “As the defendpurchased the seat in his own name, and continued ant might, by proper care, have avoided injuring to hold it until his death without any knowledge on the animal, and did not, he is liable for the consethe part of the board of any other ownership or quences of his negligence, though the animal may title. At that time he was indebted to various have been improperly there;” Mayor of Colchester members of the board upward of $5,000. By a v. Brooke, 7 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 377, where it is stated clause in the constitution of the board it was pro- that a wrong-doer is not without the pale of the law vided that “where a member dies his seat may be requiring overy one to use care and skill in the consold by the secretary, and after satisfying the claims duct of that which may be harmful to others if misof the members of the board, the balance shall be conducted; Tuff v. Warman, 94 Eng. C. L. Rep. paid to his legal representatives.” The seat was 573. Here it was held that mere negligence on the sold by the secretary, and the question at issue was, part of plaintiff would not defeat his right of recovwhether plaintiff was entitled to the proceeds or ery if the defendant might, by care on his part, have any part thereof, either in full or in equal propor- avoided the results of plaintiff's carelessness. See, tion with the other creditors of the deceased, who also, State v. Railroad, 52 N. H. 528; Kerohacher v. were members of the board. The court held that C., C. & C. R. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 172; Evansville, the partner purchased the seat subject to the rules etc., R. R. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102; Beers v. Housaof the association, that the plaintiff invested his tonic R. R. Co., 19 Conn. 572. In Brown v. Hannimoney, trusting to the partner's integrity; and hav- bal & St. Jos. R. R. Co., 50 Mo. 461; 11 Am. Rep. ing permitted the partner to exercise the privileges 420, it was held that the fact that plaintiff was of membership, he made him liable to the penalties, wrongfully on defendant's track at the time he was and that the proceeds of the sale of the seat should | injured by defendant's negligence would not defeat be applied as far as they would go in payment of an action for such injury. See, also, note to the the claims of members of the board. In the case of case last cited, 11 Am. Rep. 425, where the authoriSingerly v. Johnson, 3 Week. N. Cas., also before a ties are collected.
SOME RECENT DECISIONS_215T AMERICAN. | escape from defendant's locomotive, it was held no
defense that the roof of the barn was in such conII.
dition as to be easily kindled. In other words the THE Pennsylvania cases are very interesting. | owner of the barn was not bound to slate his roof In Lancaster County Bank v. Moore (78 Penn.
for the convenience of the railroad people. St. 407), the plaintiff lent money to the defendant
The unquiet question of proximate and remote upon his note. Afterward the defendant was judici- | cause came up again in Pennsylrania Railroad Co. v. ally determined to have been insane at the time. Hope (80 Penn. St. 373). Fire having been comThe plaintiff, having no knowledge of the defend municated by a locomotive to a cross-tie of the ant's insanity, was held entitled to recover. This
track, spread thence through rubbish and dry grass case is accompanied by an elaborate note. In First to plaintiff's lands, about six hundred feet distant, National Bank of Carlisle v. Graham (79 Penn. St. held, that it was for the jury to determine whether 106) the defendant's cashier, to the knowledge of the injury was the natural and probable consequence the directors, received the plaintiff's bonds for safe of the first ignition. Considerable attention was keeping, without compensation, and they were devoted to the defense of the Kerr Case, 1 Am. stolen. Held, that the bank would be liable if gross
, that the bank would be liable if gross | Rep. 431. negligence should be shown. The doctrine that the Massachusetts always furnishes a "Lord's Day" deposit was outside the corporate powers of the case, and here we have Smith v. Boston and Maine bank, as laid down in First National Bank of Lyons | Railroad (120 Mass. 490), holding that one who v. The Ocean National Bunk, 19 Am. Rep. 181, and travels on the Lord's Day to ascertain whether a Wiley v. The First National Bank of Brattleboro, id. / house which he has hired, and into which he in122, was not approved.
tends to move the next day, has been cleaned, canOne of the most ingenious frauds ever concocted not maintain an action for injuries sustained at a is the subject of examination in Broun v. Reed (79) railroad crossing through the negligence of the servPenn. St. 370). The defendant signed the follow- ants of the corporation. It seems to have made no ing instrument: “North East, April 3, 1872. Six difference that the plaintiff had attended church in months after date I promise to pay J. B. Smith, or | the morning. (bearer fifty dollars, when I sell by) order, two They are not quite so religious down in Louisiana, hundred and fifty dollars (worth of Hay and Harvest for in Mahood v. Tealza (26 La. Ann. 108) an action Grinders) for value received with legal interest with to recover the price of furniture sold, to the plainout (appeal, and also without) defalcation or stay | tiff's knowledge, to furnish a house of ill fame, was of execution. T. H. Brown, (Agent for Hay and held maintainable. This seems consistent with Harvest Grinders).” This instrument was so printed, Heineman v. Neroman (55 Ga. 262), reported in this that by cutting it through vertically, the portions | volume, which holds that, in an action for the price in parentheses were separated from the rest, and of goods sold and delivered, the defense that the the remainder formed a good promissory note. It sale was made for the purpose of defrauding the was so cut without defendant's knowledge, and the plaintiff's creditors is unavailing. In City of Shreveresulting note was transferred to an innocent pur port v. Levy (26 La. Ann. 671) a municipal ordichaser. Held, that defendant was not liable in the Dance, forbidding the sale of goods on Sunday, but absence of negligence, and negligence was a ques | excepting from its operation those who closed their tion for the jury.
business places on Saturday, was held unconstituIn Mentz v. Armenia Fire Insurance Co. (79 Penn. tional, because it gives the Jews an unfair advanSt. 478) a fire policy was conditioned that in case tage. A few pages further on we find City of Nero of difference between the assured and the company Orleans v. Stafford (27 La. Ann. 417), holding that touching the amount of any loss, such difference | an act of the legislature, prohibiting private markets should be submitted to arbitrators, whose decision within twelve squares of a public market in New should be final and conclusive, and no action was to Orleans, is not unconstitutional, as interfering with be maintained on the policy unless the amount of pre-existing private rights. The enactment is deloss or damage in case of difference or dispute should fended on the ground of public health. In Burke be first ascertained. Held, that the condition did | v. Bishop (27 La. Ann. 465) the gift, causa mortis, of not oust the court of jurisdiction of an action on a check drawn by a third person to the order of the the policy, and that if the condition was of any testator, and by him indorsed in blank, was held effect, the company must show that they admitted valid, although the check was not presented for the validity of the policy and their liability under payment until after the testator's death. it, and that the only question was as to the extent Among the New York cases, the case of Malone of the loss.
v. Hathaway (64 N. Y. 5), on which we have before In Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Co. v. Hen- commented, involving the question of the liability drickson (80 Penn. St. 182), the plaintiff's barn hav- of the master for an injury caused by one of his serving been burned by sparks negligently permitted to "ants to another servant, is reported and accom
panied by an excellent note. In Rounds v. The Dela- would have been apt to hear any thing alleged ware, etc., Railroad Co. (64 N. Y. 129) the plaintiff, against him, and has never heard his character a boy twelve years old, jumped on the baggage car talked about, “the fact that a person's character is to catch a ride, and the brakeman kicked him off, | not talked about at all being excellent evidence that and he was injured. A verdict for the plaintiff was he gives no occasion for censure, or, in other words, sustained. In Lancey v. Clark (64 N. Y. 209), the that his character is good.” defendant having lent his note to a firm, who procured its discount at a bank, one of the partners SOME POINTS ON EXTRADITION. borrowed money from the plaintiff to take up the
OCHRE POINT, NEWPORT, R. I., I note, and, after it was due, took it up and sent it to
November 28, 1877.5 the plaintiff. Held, that the plaintiff took title Isaac GRANT THOMPSON, Esq.: from the partner, and not from the bank, and could MY DEAR SIR-I regret that my telegram did not not recover. In Patterson v. Birdsall (64 N. Y. 294)
arrive in time to enable you to correct an oversight in a valid first mortgage was satisfied and discharged,
my letter, with respect to the incorporation, into the
Revised Statutes, of the McLeod act. From a further the holder receiving in its place an usurious second
search, after my manuscript was sent off, I ascertained mortgage. Held, that, the new mortgage being that the provisions of that law were substantially revoid, the original mortgage could still be enforced. produced in sections 753, 762 and 763, pages 142 and 143,
In Connecticut, Osborn v. Bryne (43 Conn. 155) | and I pray you to insert this correction in the next decides that, upon the insolvency of a savings bank,
publication of THE JOURNAL. As the absence of due
care on my part has rendered necessary this note, I a depositor cannot set off his deposit against a debt
avail myself of the occasion to suggest some points due from him to the bank. In Evergreen Cemetery
deduced from my extradition articles, to which, if ConAssociation v. City of New Haven (43 Conn. 234) it is gress should deem a legislative investigation expedient, held that a municipal corporation, without statutory | its attention might be directed : authority or necessary and reasonable implication, 1. Whether on general principles, common to all cannot take for a highway any part of the lands of
civilized and especially to all christian nations, a State
is ever authorized to deliver up (Lord Coke said that a cemetery.
it was not) its citizens or those whom it has received In California the case of National Gold Bank and
under its protection to a foreign State, to be tried by its Trust Co. v. McDonald (51 Cal. 64) decides that | laws, administered by its judges ? checks deposited with a bank and credited in the 2. Whether extradition, either with or without depositor's pass-book are received, in the absence of
treaty, is consistent with Magna Charta or the bills of a special agreement, for collection, and not as cash, |
right, as incorporated into the organic laws of all the
States of the Union, and which declare, in terms more and, whether drawn on the same or on another bank,
or less precise, that “no member of the State can be may be afterward returned, and the credit may be
disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privilannulled, if there are no funds to meet them. This eges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law seems rather in conflict with Oddie v. The National of the land or by the judgment of his peers ?" City Bank, 45 N. Y. 735. In Brenner v. Liverpool,
· 3. Whether extradition, in whatever mode granted, etc., Insurance Co. (51 Cal. 101) a building was in
either by treaty or by the executive or other depart
ment of the federal government, is not a violation of sured by a policy conditioned to be void if the
the Constitution of the United States, which was inbuilding should fall, except by fire. The fall, not
tended to protect, certainly in all cases of federal cogby fire, of about one-quarter of the building was | nizance, all persons within our jurisdiction from being held not to avoid the policy. Two judges dissented. | held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous If we had argued this case for the plaintiffs, we |
crime, without the presentment or indictment of a
grand jury, or deprived of life, liberty and property should have cited Childe Harold, canto 4, v. 145:
without due process of law; and which professes to • While stands the Coliseum, Rome shall stand;
secure “in all criminal prosecutions speedy and public • When falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall;
trial by an impartial jury ?" *And when Rome falls, the world. From our own land
4. Inter-State extradition is regulated by the ConstiThus spake the pilgrims o'er this mighty wall
tution of the United States, accepted by all the States In Saxon times, which we are wont to call Ancient; and these three mortal things are still
of the Union as “the supreme law of the land," but it On their foundations."
being established that the individual States have no Although the Coliseum is partly in ruins, is it a
power to surrender their citizens or others to foreign
countries, and that there can be no extradition by the “fallen building ?” The poet says no. In Arques
executive or other departments of the general governv. Wasson (51 Cal. 620) a mortgage, by a lessee of ment, by virtue of any authority vested in them, is it land in possession, of crops to be raised, but not yet competent for the President and Senate to make a planted, was held effectual. This is consonant with valid treaty of extradition, in disregard alike of the Apperson v. Moore, 30 Ark. 56, also reported in this
Constitution of the United States, and of the bills of
rights of the States - more especially is it competent volume.
to make such a treaty regulating and controlling the In Minnesota, in State v. Lee (22 Minn. 407), it is
| exercise of the criminal jurisdiction of the judividual held that negative evidence of character is compe- | States, and which has always been regarded as a matter tent, as where the witness knows the accused, and I of State cognizance ?
5. But if it be competent for the treaty-making | having the same laws and language as France and power to make such treaties, is it not necessary, to Belgium, extradition treaties have been generally of avoid any embarrassment in our international rela very little effect. May it not be worthy of considerations as well as collision with the State authorities, tion, whether the evils resulting from them, including that the execution of them should be under the ex such cases as that of Robbins or Nash under our first clusive control of the United States, both as regards treaty with England, may not overbalance the advantthe surrender by us of the alleged fugitives from jus ages that can accrue from them, and whether in most tice and the proceedings as to the trial of those who cases falling within these terms, the apprehension of are surrendered to us by foreign powers ?
extradition under the treaty would effect, especially 6. If it be competent for the United States to make a with the higher class of culprits, what the dread of valid treaty of extradition, every act of surrender being exile, deemed by the Romans the greatest of all in derogation of the right of asylum, should not the punishments, could not accomplish? offenses to which it applies be only those of a heinous It would seem that extradition treaties are destined character, excluding those that are of such a nature, to receive a fatal blow from a source which I have not that the injury done to the extradited party by the act anticipated in my letters,-their incompatibility with of surrender, would exceed the punishment prescribed the abolition of the death penalty in some countries, for the offense, and should they not only be accurately while it is maintained in others. My eminent coldefined but ample provision be made for carrying out league of the Institute, Mancini, in proposing, as the condition, such as exists in the extradition Minister of Justice of Italy, its abrogation, is underclause of our English treaty, that the accused persons stood to have intimated that it would be impossible should only be delivered up “ upon such evidence of thereafter to comply with demands for extradition, criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the result of wbich would be to subject the accused or the fugitive or person so cbarged shall be found, would convicted party to a punishment abhorrent to the rejustify his apprehension and commitment for trial if cognized principles of humanity. the crime or offense had there been committed ?" I am, my dear sir, And it may be here suggested whether some of the
Yours very truly, new treaties made by the United States, like that with
W. B. LAWRENCE. Belgium, and which include convicted persons, making, it would seem, the judgment of conviction con THE TRIAL OF THE LONDON DETECTIVES. clusive, on the party from whom the surrender is asked, do not abandon the principle of the clause in
LONDON, November 22, 1877. the English treaty, and which these treaties do not
ON Tuesday four out of the five prisoners on trial reproduce.
for conspiracy, at the Old Bailey, were convicted; 7. Does it not follow from the principle of asylum
one of the accused -- Chief-Inspector Clark – was acheretofore alluded to, that as, for every fact foreign
quitted. The preliminary examination at Bow street to tbe extradition, the accused is, in contemplation of
extended over three months; the trial before the jury law, in the territory of the country of refuge, the power
occupied a little more than three weeks. The public of the State to which he is surrendered is limited to
interest in the proceedings, from first to last, was inthe trial of the offense for which he is extradited, and
tense, and there is no reasonable doubt of the justice that consequently, if acquitted, he not only cannot be
of the conviction. tried for another offense, whether before known or
Three chief inspectors of the detective branch of the brought to notice in the course of the proceedings, but
Metropolitan Police - ('lark, Palmer and Druscovich is entitled to be restored to the place from which he
| an inspector named Meiklejobu, and a solicitor named was surrendered, if not indemnified for any injuries
Froggatt, were indicted for a couspiracy, of which the accruing to him from the unjust arrest.
alleged object was to defeat the ends of justice by pre8. If a treaty of extradition can be validly made,
venting the apprehension and conviction of certain should it be entered into indifferently with all coun persons charged with crimes. The prosecution relied tries without regard to similarity of laws and institu directly upon the testimony of Kurr, Benson, and tions and character of civilization, or should it be made others, who were not only accomplices in the alleged only with a country which has the same system of conspiracy - the persons for whose benefit the plot jurisprudence with ourselves, thus confining such ar was said to be concocted – but convicted criminals rangements on the part of the United States to treaties undergoing punishment for felony. Baron Pollock, with England, with whom even in such cases our before whom the case was tried, gave the jury the corcommon language and laws have not secured always rect estimate of the value of these meu's statements, harmonious action.
but they were supported by a mass of corroborative 9. Should treaties be further extended to countries details, showing the general accuracy of their testiwhich, although differing in language and laws from mony, and conclusively fixing upon the accused their us, recognize with us a common private as well as guilty connection with the frauds for which the witpublic international law, such as France, and the nesses had been convicted. The jury, after a clear countries adopting her codes, and Germany, whose and dispassionate summing-up, arrived without hesinew institutions are supposed to be in advance in tation at the conclusion that the charge had been criminal legislation ?
proved against Meiklejohn, Palmer, Druscovich and 10. Is regard to be had to the due administration of Froggatt, while they acquitted Chief-Inspector Clark. justice, thus excluding Spain ? Are treaties to be con The history of the case, of which you published a fiued to our own family of nations or concluded with brief notice in the spring, is the history of a long and the Turks and Chinese, when the priuciple of exter intimate connection between the most trusted and ritoriality, to refer to no other objections, render them experienced officers of Scotland Yard, and a coufedwholly inapplicable ?
eration of rogues, who, by the aid of these officers, 11. Except in the case of co-terminous countries | prosecuted their exteusive frauds in the boldest man
ner, taking offices, sending out printed circulars and for safely realizing the money. But while they were advertisements, and carrying on all the details of their | planning the chase became hot on a sudden; Benson business without even an attempt at concealment. and Kurr bad repeated warnings from their purchased Kurr, the principal of the gang, and the most import- | allies in London, among whom Palmer for the first ant of the witnesses against the detectives, was in re time appears. Druscovich was sent to the Bridge of lations with Inspector Meiklejohn as long ago as 1873, Allan, and deliberately wasted time while Kurr and when he needed protection for the fraudulent betting Beuson disappeared. Subsequently the conspirators agencies which he established in the principal cities of had many interviews with both Druscovich and Meithe United Kingdom, and from which he derived a klejohn, and on the eve of their flight for Rotterlarge income. As his business and connections ex dam they stopped at Palmer's house. At Rotterdam, tended themselves, he sought the aid of other rogues, where they were finally arrested, Druscovich had visnotably Benson, a French Jew, of liberal education ited them. and considerable ability, who had recently completed a Here the counection of Froggatt, the solicitor, with term of penal servitude for a fraud upon the Lord the case, begins. After the arrest at Rotterdam, he was Mayor, whereby he had mulcted that functionary of a employed by one of the confederates, who remained in thousand pounds. At the same time Meiklejohn brought London, aud became a party, with him, to the dispatch under Kurr's influence his brother officers, Drusco of a telegram, in the name of the Superintendent of vich and Palmer: and it was in consequence of this Police of London, to the Dutch authorities, concocted accession, both of evasive and commissive strength, for the purpose of securing the release of the prisonthat Kurr designed and executed his crowning vil ers. He negotiated for the disposal of the Scotch lainy, the De Goncourt fraud.
notes of which the prisoners had not been able to Briefly, the De Goncourt fraud was this: Kurr, make use in the ordinary way, and it was proved that using Benson's brains and knowledge, flooded certain some of these notes were paid into Froggatt's bank departments of France with circulars and advertise account. He attempted to prevent several witnesses ments, showing how money intrusted to the advertiser, from appearing against or identifying Kurr, and he to be laid out in betting upon the Euglish turf, could tried to obtain possession of important documentary be made to return enormous profits. Many thousands evidence against Benson, presumably in order to deof dollars were spent in circulating these schemes, and stroy it. Kurr himself testified that his returns in three weeks! The conspirators all received the same sentence, the were $75,000! Among his victims was a wealthy old severest the law permits, two years' peval servitude. lady, Madame De Goncourt, who became so enamored Druscovich and Palmer were strongly recommended of the scheme that she went to Paris for the purpose to mercy, but the universal sentiment is that these of raising money on securities, and remitted Kurr received no more than they deserved, while for Mei$50,000. Of course she heard nothing from Kurr after klejohn's offense the punishment is wholly inadequate. the receipt of the money, and it was in consequence A conviction for "conspiracy” at common law does of the efforts of her solicitor that the knaves were not involve a sentence with hard labor; but a refinally brought to justice.
cent statute has added that penalty to conspiracies The confederates were now in possession of ample against public justice. means for satisfying the demands of the corrupted But the two years' penal servitude must be acofficers, and now, too, they stood in need of their assist counted as trifling in comparison with loss of posiance. The proceeds of Madame De Goncourt's checks tion, reputation, and, in the case of the three detechad been converted into Scotch notes, because of the tives, pension, earned by years of service in the callrisk of maintaining a bank account in London in the ing from which all of them are henceforth excluded. face of the investigations Madame De G.'s solicitor was pushing. Druscovich, in whose hands the inquiry had been placed, bound by his acceptance of previous
PRE-EMPTION OF LAND CLAIMED UNDER bribes, warned the swindlers, and they decamped to
MEXICAN TITLES Scotland with their spoil, where they attempted to In the case of Van Reynegan, plaintiff in error, v. baffle pursuit by getting the notes changed. During 1 Bolton, just decided by the Supreme Court of the these operations Druscovich aided the fugitives by his United States, the action was on ejectment by one concerted delays, but he told them he would ultimately claiming lands situate in California, under a title be compelled to arrest some of them if they did not derived from the Mexican Government against one make their escape. In order to arrange matters, claiming to be rightfully in possession under the preMeiklejohn was brought up from Derby, where he emption laws of the United States. The court held had accepted a position under the Midland Railway thus: (1.) Under the Mexican law, when a grant of Company, and he succeeded apparently in getting land is made by the government, a formal delivery of Druscovich to render more active help. For this ag. possession to the grantee by a magistrate of the vicinsistance the conspirators paid him bandsomely, giving age is essential to the complete investiture of title. him £500 in Scotch bank uotes. This payment proved This proceeding, called in the language of the country his ruin. He rashly attempted to put the notes in cir the delivery of judicial possession, involves the estabculation, even after the Police Gazette had cautioned lishment of the boundaries of the land granted when bankers against them. Some intimation of this sus there is any uncertainty with respect to them. A picious circumstance found its way to Scotland Yard, record of the proceeding is preserved by the magistrate but Druscovich was in charge of the office, and inquiry and a copy delivered to the grantee. (2.) Unless there was evaded for a time. Repeated attempts were made is something in the decree of the tribunals of the by the conspirators to get rid of the Scotch notes, and United States confirming a claim to land under a interviews between Benson and Kurr with others on Mexican grant otherwise limiting the extent or form the one side, and Meiklejohn and Druscovich on the of the tract, the boundaries thus established should other, were held at the Bridge of Allan to devise plans control the officers of the United States in surveying