the time of the testator's death fail in this case. Ascertaining them at that time might lead to intestacy, in case all those persons who were then heirs-at-law should die before Mrs. Wood; or, in case a part only of them should die, it would lead to great inequalities among the different branches of his relatives. No reason is apparent why he should wish to discriminate against any branch of the family. The use of the words "they taking by right of representation" shows no discrimination was intended against the children of his deceased brothers Eliphalet and Lyman. No reason is apparent why he should wish to discriminate against the children of his sister. The words "they tak-fore was quite different from the present. ing by right of representation," though not of themselves decisive, nevertheless appear to furnish some indication that he meant to have his beirs ascertained at the time of his wife's death, and to exclude none of those who at that time would be his heirs. The fact that the other half of the trust fund was given to his wife's heirs-at-law then surviving, the language being similar in both cases, tends to support the same view, since her heirs could not be ascertained till that time. The words "to my heirs-at-law then surviving" seem to imply that the testator assumes that there must necessarily be a class of this character then in existence, so that his will would be effective to control the disposition of the property. Entering as far as possible into the feelings and wishes of the testator at the time of making his will, it seems on the whole to be satisfactorily certain that, in the event contemplated, he meant to give the one half of the trust fund in equal proportions, having regard to the right of representation, to those persons then living who at that time would be his heirs-at-law. This gives a fuller and broader and more natural meaning to his words, and seems to be more consistent with his general purposes.

as my heirs." The court held that they meant that, at that stage, the law should take its course, and the estate go to the testator's heirs, as if he had made no further disposition; that this view was fortified by the use of the word "descend," which ordinarily denotes the vesting of the estate by operation of law immediately upon the death of the ancestor; that the word "surviving" was not superadded; and that the word "then" was inserted, not by way of description of the persons who are to take, but by way of defining the time when they should come into the enjoyment of that which was devised to them. The case in reality there

In Whall v. Converse, 146 Mass. 345, 5 New Eng. Rep. 823, there was nothing to take the case out of the general rule that ordinarily a devise of a remainder to heirs shows an intent at that stage to let the property go according to law. And there is no occasion to do more than merely mention a few other similar cases in this State. Minot v. Harris, 132 Mass. 528; Abbott v. Bradstreet, 3 Allen, 587; Minot v. Tappan, 122 Mass. 535; Childs v. Russell, 11 Met. 16.

The case of Dove v. Torr, 128 Mass. 38, seems at first sight to go somewhat in a different direction from that above expressed. In that case the words were, after the time fixed, "the estate herein devised shall descend to those persons who may then be entitled to take the same

The following cases tend more or less to support the conclusion we have reached upon the construction of the will: Fargo v. Miller, 150 Mass. 225; Knowlton v. Sanderson, 141 Mass. 323, 2 New Eng. Rep. 100; Sears v. Russell, 8 Gray, 86, 94, 97; Wharton v. Barker, 4 Kay & J. 483, which is often cited, and nowhere questioned; Sturge v. Great Western R. Co. L. R. 19 Ch. Div. 444; Clowes v. Hilliard, L. R. 4 Ch. Div. 413; Long v. Blackall, 3 Ves. Jr. 486; Pinder v. Pinder, 28 Beav. 44; Re Morley's Trusts, 25 Week. Rep. 825; Travis v. Taylor, 12 Jur. N. S. 791; Bessant v. Noble, 2 Jur. N. S. 461; Doe v. Frost, 3 Barn. & Ald. 546; Briden v. Hewlett, 2 Myl. & K. 90; Butler v. Bushnell, 3 Myl. & K. 232; Clapton v. Bulmer, 5 Myl. & Cr. 108.

The result is that the bill should be dismissed as to all of the plaintiffs except Mrs. Moor and Charles W. Smith, and that these two plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in their favor. Ordered accordingly.

MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT.

James A. RANDALL, Appt., EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION et al.

v.

(....Mich.....)

1. A publication containing imputations that a member of the Legislature went there solely for the purpose of passing a bill to enrich himself and his copartners in a certain scheme, and that he had used both liquor and money to procure votes therefor from other members, is libelous.

2. A picture which is a caricature of a member of the Legislature standing on a platform which rests upon bottles, one of which is marked "Rye" with a cask marked "Gin" with faucet all ready for opening upon the platform, on which cask his right foot rests while his left

3.

printed in connection with a publication which charges his corruption in procuring the passage of a bill, means that liquor and money were used by him in procuring its passage, and constitutes a libel if the implied charges are not true.

The inducement is sufficient in a declaration to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libel consisting of imputations that a certain member of the Legislature was guilty of corrupt motives and practices in introducing and procuring the passage of a certain bill, where it shows that plaintiff was a member of the Legislature, and was the introducer of such bill, and was the person referred to in the publication. 4. No innuendo is needed in pleading a libel if the meaning of the publication is plain. (January 24, 1890.)

hand is pressed against his heart, and his right ERROR to the Circuit Court for Wayne

hand extended holds a bag marked "$," when 7 L. R. A.

County to review a judgment sustaining

a demurrer to the declaration in an action to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libel. Reversed.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion. Messrs. Henry C. Wisner and Edwin F. Conely, with Mr. John J. Speed, for plaintiff, appellant:

It is not essential that the articles should impute "a legal crime, or any legal or moral offense, or legal or moral turpitude."

Root v. King, 7 Cow. 613, 4 Wend. 114; Sol verton v. Peterson, 64 Wis. 200.

The charge that the conduct of Mr. Randall in accepting the office of representative, and in office, was inspired and governed solely by sordid and selfish motives, is libelous.

See opinion of Parke, B., in Parmiter v. Coupland, 6 Mees. & W. 108; Curtis v. Mussy, 6 Gray, 261.

By statute, the giving of a bribe, or attempting by any other corrupt means to control or influence the giving of votes by members of the Legislature, is a criminal offense (How. Stat. § 38, 39, 9241), and to falsely and maliciously publish that one had given a bribe to a member of the Legislature to secure the passage of a bill is libelous.

Wilson v. Noonan, 23 Wis. 106.

The publication was sufficiently clear and explicit, and no innuendo was needed to explain the words or point their application.

Bathrick v. Detroit Post & Tribune Co. 50 Mich. 640.

defendants as hereinafter mentioned; and that the said defendants, contriving, and wickedly and maliciously intending, to injure the said plaintiff in his good name, fame and credit, and to bring him into public scandal, disrepute, ridicule and disgrace with and among his neighbors, and other good and worthy citizens of this State, and to cause it to be believed by them that he, the said plaintiff, had been guilty of the several acts of misconduct and offense hereinafter mentioned to have been imputed to him, heretofore, to wit, on the 8th day of May, 1889, at Detroit, in said County of Wayne, falsely, wickedly and maliciously did compose, print and publish, and cause and procure to be published, in a certain newspaper, known and styled "The Evening News," and of which numerous copies, to wit, of the number of 40,000, are circulated in said city, county and State, the words following, to wit, and the picture hereinafter delineated, to wit:

A GREAT VICTORY-WHAT NEXT? Rep. Randall is receiving congratulations on every hand over his success in inducing the Michigan Legislature to pass a bill designed to enrich a few speculators at the general expense of the City of Detroit. The next move of the speculators will be to corrupt the caucuses of both parties, and bribe and bulldoze a sufficient number of the common council and board of estimates to vote to issue the bonds. This is somewhat of a job, but it will be cheaper than

Messrs. Dickinson, Thurber & Steven- allowing the people to vote on the bonding son for defendants, appellees.

Morse, J., delivered the opinion of the

court:

question direct. If the $500,000 wanted now was all that would be required, the question might arise whether it was worth fighting; but $500,000 is only the entering wedge of a demand that will not stop short of $2,500,000, even if it does then. And all to enrich a few men who have grabbed a street and are determined that other people's money shall make them wealthy. However, The News can staud it a great deal better than the majority of citizens, who must foot the bills. We therefore join the others who are congratulating Mr. Randall on his victory over the solid opposition of his fellow citizens. There probably never was so signal a victory against such great odds in the history of Michigan legislation. Here was a measure proposed avowedly in the per

The plaintiff commenced a suit in a plea of trespass on the case for libel against the defendants in the Wayne Circuit Court. His declaration averred that he was and is a good, true, honest, just and faithful citizen of this State, and as such had always behaved and conducted himself; that at the time of the printing and publication of the articles of which he complains he was a member of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, from the City of Detroit, being such member from the 2d day of January, 1889, up to the present time; that as such member he bath at all times conducted himself as a good, honest and faith-sonal interests of its introducer and his partful official, and hath executed and performed his duties as such representative in an honest and conscientious manner, and for the best interests of the State, and of the constituency represented by him, and that he has never been guilty, or, until the time of the publication of these articles by the defendants, been suspected to have been guilty, of the offenses and misconduct hereinafter mentioned to have been charged and imputed to him; that the said plaintiff, as a member of the said House of Representatives, at the session thereof, which began on the first Wednesday of January, 1889, did introduce a bill in said House, entitled "A Bill to Empower the Common Council of the City of Detroit to Borrow Money for the Purpose of Improving the Boulevard,' and which said bill was duly passed by said House, and on the 7th day of May, 1889, passed by the Senate; and said bill is the same bill referred to in the publication by the said

ners. He made no secret of it. He told his fellow members very plainly from the start that he did not go to Lansing to waste his time in the public service. He went there for this bill, and this bill alone; and he represented himself and his copartners in the deal, who, like himself, had pecuniary interests in the measure. The bill was denounced by the mayor, denounced by the common council, denounced by the board of estimates, denounced by 5,000 petitioners; and Mr. Randall candidly acknowledged before the senate committee that if it were submitted to the popular vote of Detroit it would be overwhelmed by an adverse majority. Furthermore, the majority of Detroit's representatives at Lansing opposed it, and still further, the bill was one which concerned Detroit alone, and which in no way af fected the State outside of Detroit. Here was a situation which might well appall the strongest heart. But it had no terror for the boule

THE BOULEVARD PLANS.

They are to get $100,000 in bonds issued this year.-Ald. Lauder outlines them, and says the council and board of estimates will be "converted" very soon. Can they be "influeuced" as easily as the Legislature?

varder's gall. When the Legislature was care- | listened to; a junto of state appointed, and irfully sized up, it was found to be the smallest, responsible police commissioners will be suscheapest, rottenest body that ever assembled in tained and supported in oppressing and abusLansing. The premonitory symptoms of a de-ing her law-abiding citizens, while they allow sire to steal something manifested themselves thieves and murderers to escape; and every from the beginning. Scarcely a day passed rascal who makes his way to Lansing with a that some measure was not introduced contain scheme to thrust his arm into her treasury ing promises of boodle, or that the Legislature shall have his way if he brings along money did not resolve upon some expedition or junket, enough to pay for it. for which the members voted themselves extra pay or allowance. Nothing was too small for them to despise, nothing too large for them to grasp at. Twenty-five per cent of the whole gang openly announced themselves by words or acts to be paid attorneys of outside interests, and most of the remainder of them waited around for these attorneys to share their fees. The boulevard heelers are in high glee toAll who have been to Lansing this winter, and day over the slick way that Representative including even the lobbyists, confess that the Randall worked his bonding bill through the present Legislature is the rottenest and cheapest Legislature. They don't know yet just what that ever gathered at the capitol. One thing the next move will be, but they feel sure that has conspicuously appeared from a very early by proper manipulation some of the bonds will date in the session. The Legislature of Michi- be in shape so they can get their hands on them gan has learned the trick, long practiced in the before many moons. Ald. Lauder came out Legislature of New York, of looking upon the openly this noon, and offered to bet a silk hat metropolis of the State as a victim fatted for that $100,000 worth of the bonds would be isthe sacrifice. In both States the State Legis sued this year, and he wanted to bet another lature is overwhelmingly Republican, while hat that the present board of aldermen would the metropolis is overwhelmingly Democratic. vote for the bonds by a good majority. He At Albany the metropolis is robbed and pil- made the offer to a crowd near the Russell laged by special legislation. Detroit has always House, but, as everybody present knew how been treated with just as little conscience by easily the boulevarders tied strings to the rural the Republican Legislature at Lansing, but legislators, which enabled them to make the r. never until the present winter did it dawn upon 1. dance every time the string was pulled, nothe rural legislative mind that she would afford body took up the bet. "I tell you," said the fat pickings for the rural legislative pocket. alderman, "the council and the board of estiMr. Randall materially assisted in impressing mates, too, are for the boulevard by a good the rural legislator with this lesson, by assur- majority. I have not counted noses yet, but I ing him that the city was governed by Demo- and others have talked to a good many, and cratic rascals, and populated chiefly by Demo- know how they stand. They will give us what cratic thieves, knaves, rumsellers and rum we want. Hear what I tell you now." A bydrinkers, meanwhile keeping open house, and stander, who surmised that the boulevarders dealing out free rum himself to the thirsty might attempt to corrupt the aldermen as they granger law-maker. In all these considerations corrupted the rural legislators, asked Ald. Lauthe rustic not only found argument for appro- der what it was that would make the council priating Detroit's money to his own use, go back on their position of two months ago, through the medium of those who expect to when they voted three to one against issuing recover it, and a hundred times more, from any boulevard bonds. "They didn't underthe taxpayers, but also found a salve for his stand the needs of the boulevard then," he anhypocrisy, for he dearly loves to find a moral swered; "but they are getting better posted on reason for his thefts. With such a body every- it now. They see that all the money from the thing was possible, particularly when $500,000 bonds will be paid to the workingmen. Oh, I was at stake. But what shall the people of tell you we will get the $100,000 soon." The Detroit say to the Republican party, which, alderman is certainly candid, and, as he is in a through the Legislature it controls, becomes position to speak for the boulevard, his talk responsible for this infamous treatment of the would seem to settle the fact beyond dispute great city? And what shall the common peo- that the boulevarders, instead of waiting till ple of the whole State say, who are in sympathy next fall to elect enough aldermen to carry out with the robbed toilers of the city? They and their schemes, will try to work the present their fellows have been robbed and pillaged by council. Their success in corrupting the rural the authority of the Republican party, in the legislators has encouraged them to try the same name of the Republican party; their petitions influences on the aldermen. But, fortunately and protests have been spat upon, and their for the taxpayers, the people can reach the corspokesmen branded in the open Senate as an-rupt aldermen when they come up for election, archists and incendiaries,-all because Detroit which they cannot do with the corrupt legislagives a Democratic majority. Detroit is, in tor from Oshkosh or Podunk. The commisshort, officially informed by the Republican Legisture that so long as she votes the Democratic ticket she will not be allowed to govern herself; she will be ignored in every measure, concerning her dearest interests; her representatives will be snubbed, and only those who go out to Lansing to rob her will be respected or

sioners which the boulevarders named in the Park and Boulevard Consolidation Bill, and who they expected would lay out an extravagant plan for boulevard improvements, will have a short lease of office. Mayor Pridgeon said to-day that under a decision of the supreme court the Legislature has no right to appoint

a permanent municipal board of Detroit, the | The Evening News,' and of a large circulation appointment of which is vested in the mayor. The commissioners named in the bill may serve for a short time, but the mayor will appoint a park and boulevard board very soon after he has been officially notified that the law is in force. The picture cannot well be reproduced here, but it was a caricature of Mr. Randall standing upon a platform, supported at each corner, and resting upon bottles, one of which was marked "Rye." Upon the platform was a cask marked "Gin," with faucet all ready for opening. Mr. Randall's right foot rested upon this cask. His left hand was pressed against his heart, and his right arm was extended, and clasped in his right hand was a bag marked "$." Above the picture was the following heading:

imputations are found within the articles. The plain meanings of the articles are: first, that Mr. Randall did not go to Lansing as a member of the Legislature to serve the public, and so publicly expressed himself, but that he went there alone for the purpose of passing this boulevard bill, to enrich himself and his copartners in the boulevard scheme at the expense of the people of the City of Detroit; and, secondly, that the Legislature was of such a character that they were grasping for boodle (meaning money), and that the members were susceptible of bribery, in the shape of liquor and money, from those interested in the passage of bills, and that Mr. Randall, taking advantage of this characteristic of said members, used both liquor and money to accomplish the passage of this bill, which was to put money in his own pocket at the taxpayers' expense.

him, at the expense of the taxpayers. And we are satisfied that if the charge made against Mr. Randall in this respect be true, he deserves the scorn and contempt of every good citizen, and would receive it. Consequently, if untrue, it is libelous, and has damaged him in the estimation of good men and honest citizens, and whom we believe to be yet largely in the majority in every community in our State. It is equally libelous, if untrue, to state that Mr. Randall accomplished the passage of this boulevard bill by keeping open house, with liquors (which is the true and plain meaning of these publications), or that he did it by the use of boodle.

The inducement in the declaration was sufficient. It is the office of the inducement to narrate the extrinsic circumstances, which, coupled with the language published, affect its construction, and render it actionable; where, standing alone, and not thus explained, the language would appear either not to concern the plaintiff, or, if concerning him, not to affect him injuriously. It is a statement of the facts out of which the charge arises, or which are necessary or useful to make the charge intel

dall to have been a member of the Michigan House of Representatives from the City of Detroit, and the introducer of the boulevard bill, or a bill authorizing the common council of the City of Detroit to raise money to improve the boulevard. With this showing the articles are intelligible, and their actionable character apparent.

The picture itself is capable of but one meaning, and that is that Randall's monument should show that liquor and money was the source of his Napoleon-like success in passing the bill. This is libelous, if not true. It is gravely argued that men are elected to the Legislature and to the Congress of the United States at every election, avowedly in the inter-ligible. Here the inducement shows Mr. Ranest of private schemes of plunder, and not in the interest of the public, to represent corporations and other bodies or associates of men for their financial advancement and profit, without reference to the interests of the people at large, or even the constituency of the member so elected; that there is nothing illegal in this, because there is no law or statute providing that a member shall lose his seat by so doing; that it is at least perfectly legal for a member of the Legislature to devote his whole time and energies as such member to enrich himself, or the class or corporation he represents, at the expense of the public. If there is now no law against such action by a member of the Legislature, it is high time that statutes be enacted looking towards not only the unseating of a member guilty of prostituting his high place to personal and corrupt greed, but providing also a punishment for such misconduct. Be that as it may, however, we are satisfied that public sentiment is not yet such as to look with either favor or complacency upon a member of the Legislature whose whole avowed aim and effort is to enrich himself, or those who hire

Nor was there necessity of any innuendoes. As said in Bourreseau v. Detroit Evening Jour nal Co.: "If the meaning of the publications is plain, therefore, no innuendo is needed. The use of it can never change the import of the words, nor add to nor enlarge their sense." See 63 Mich. 430, 6 West. Rep. 151.

The court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and the demurrer of the defendant overruled. The record will be remanded, and the usual time will be allowed the defendants in which to plead to the declaration if they so desire. Costs of this court, and of the demurrer in the court below, will be granted plaintiff.

The other Justices concurred.