.stamp it as to place the sufficiency of that particular instrument beyond all question so far as stamp duties are concerned. The provisions of the section can in no case be applied to an instrument after it has been issued or used. The collector should decline to stamp or impress an instrument under this section until the stamp duty with which he thinks it chargeable has been paid. In cases of reasonable doubt, he is recommended to obtain the opinion of this office before affixing his stamp, unless immediate action is essential to the interests of the parties concerned.

Two metallic stamps-one, "Stamp duty paid," and the other, "Not subject to stamp duty"-have been furnished to collectors for use under section 162. They should never be used under section 158; should never be used except upon such instruments as are presented for the collector's stamp before they have been issued or used.

Any person who has made, signed, or issued an instrument subject to stamp duty unstamped or insufficiently stamped, or any person having an interest therein, may present it to the collector of the proper district, who, upon payment of the price of the proper stamp required by law, a penalty of double the amount of tax remaining unpaid, but in no case less than five dollars, and where the whole amount of the tax denoted by the stamp required exceeds fifty dollars, on payment also of interest at the rate of six per centum from the day on which such stamp ought to have been affixed, is required by law to affix the stamp, and to note upon the margin of the instrument the date of his so doing, and the fact that such penalty has been paid. This duty is obligatory upon the collector, and he has no legal right to refuse to perform it.

When an instrument is presented to a collector to be stamped, under the provisions of section 158, he is authorized to remit the penalty, if it should be proven to his satisfaction that such instrument was issued without the necessary stamp by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, or urgent necessity, and without any willful design to defraud the United States of the duty, or to evade or delay the payment thereof; provided such instrument is presented to him for that purpose, and the stamp tax chargeable thereon is paid within twelve calendar months after the making or issuing thereof, or prior to the 2d day of August, 1872. Interest cannot be remitted.

The collector's marginal note should be in substance as follows:

When there is a difference of opinion respecting the stamp proper to be affixed, the collector should affix such a one as the applicant prefers; the applicant takes the risk of the validity of his instrument. In such cases, however, it is advisable to refer the question to this office.

An instrument stamped by the collector in conformity with the foregoing instructions is as valid to all intents and purposes (except as against rights acquired in good faith before such stamping and the recording of the instrument, if a record be required) as if stamped at the same rate when made and issued.

When the originals are lost, the necessary stamps may

be affixed to copies in all cases which fall under section 158.

Each collector will keep a record of all instruments stamped or impressed by him under the provisions of sections 158 and 162, in which must be given the names of the parties to each instrument, the date of its execution, and a sufficient description of its nature to show the reason for impressing or affixing the particular stamp. A certified copy of this record will be transImitted to this office at the close of each quarter. When none have been stamped during the quarter, that fact should be reported upon Form 8.

The following is a suitable form for such record, and for the sake of uniformity should be adopted by all collectors:

The names of all the parties should be entered. The description of each instrument should be accurate and full, giving all the facts essential to a determination of its liability; the number of sheets or pieces of paper in a contract: the amount of a promissory note, and if it was issued under the act of March 3, 1863, i. e., subsequent to March 2, 1863, and prior to August 1, 1864; the time it was to run; the consideration of a conveyance of realty; the amount secured by a mortgage or trust deed; the rent or rental value in the case of a lease, etc. If an instrument is presented for insufficiency of stamp, the amount upon it, when presented, should be stated. Under "how stamped" should appear the amount of adhesive stamps (if any) affixed; and if impressed "stamp duty paid," or "not subject to stamp duty," the proper entry should be made in this column. Collectors should be cautious not to impress instruments thus, unless presented before they are issued.

The whole amount of penalties paid to collectors for validating unstamped instruments should be returned on Form 58 with other unassessed penalties; the interest should be entered under the head of interest (61), and upon monthly abstract of collections (Form 22), and both penalties and interest should be deposited to the credit of the United States treasurer with other collections.

That part of the act of July 1, 1862, which relates to stamp duties on instruments, took effect on the 1st day of October, 1862. (Section 94.) The stamp laws have been amended and changed from time to time since that date, viz: by sections 24 and 25 of the act of July 14, 1862; by the amendatory act of December 25, 1862; by the amendatory act of March 3, 1863, which, as to stamp duties, took effect from and after its passage (section 37); by the act of June 30, 1864, which, so far as pertains to stamp duties upon instruments, took effect on the 1st day of August, 1864 (section 151); by the amendatory act of March 3, 1865, which, as to such duties, took

effect on the 1st day of April, 1865 (section 18); by the amendatory act of July 13, 1866, which, as to such duties, took effect on the 1st day of August, 1866 (section 70); by the amendatory act of March 2, 1867, which, so far as stamps are concerned, provides simply for a reduction of taxes, and relates back and took effect from the 1st day of March, 1866, inclusive (section 9); by the amendatory act of April 10, 1869, which, so far as stamps are concerned, took effect on its passage; and by the act of July 14, 1870, the 4th section of which took effect October 1, 1870, and the 5th section on the passage of the act.

The several remedies which have from time to time been provided for the effects of a failure to stamp instruments prior to their issue are to be found in section 24 of the act of July 14, 1862; section 5 of the act of December 25, 1862; section 163 of the act of June 30, 1864; in the amendment of March 3, 1865, to section 158 of the act of June 30, 1864; in the amendment of July 13, 1866, to said amended section 158, and in section 5 of the act of July 14, 1870.

The only remedies under existing laws are to be found in the provisions of section 158 of the act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the acts of March 3, 1865, July 13, 1866, and July 14, 1870, i. e., by having the instruments stamped by the collector of the "proper district," or by the parties or persons interested, in cases where no collection district was established at the time and place of issue.

A person who holds an unstamped conveyance founded upon a "confederate currency" consideration will be allowed to affix such stamps thereto as he may think sufficient, and no prosecution will be instituted by direction of this office for the recovery of a penalty for failure to stamp it according to the nominal amount of such consideration. If the parties interested elect to stamp it according to the actual value of the consideration in United States currency at the date of its delivery, they will be allowed to do so, taking their own risk of the sufficiency of the stamp. The validity of a deed is a question for the courts. It is one of importance to the parties, but not to this office, any further than the insufficiency of the stamp may affect the revenue. The foregoing is applicable to other instruments as well as to deeds.

PENALTIES.

A penalty of $50 is imposed upon every person who makes, signs or issues, or who causes to be made, signed or issued, any paper of any kind or description whatever, or who accepts, negotiates or pays, or causes to be accepted, negotiated or paid, any bill of exchange, draft or order or promissory note for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped, or having thereupon an adhesive stamp for denoting the tax chargeable thereon, canceled in the manner required by law, with intent to evade the provisions of the revenue act. (Section 158.)

A penalty of $200 is imposed upon every person who pays, negotiates, or offers in payment, or receives or takes in payment, any bill of exchange or order for the payment of any sum of money, drawn or purporting to be drawn in a foreign country, but payable in the United States, until the proper stamp has been affixed thereto. (Section 159.)

A penalty of $50 is imposed upon every person who fraudulently makes use of an adhesive stamp to denote the duty required by the revenue act, without effectually canceling and obliterating the same in the manner required by law. (Section 156.)

Attention is particularly called to the following extract from section 155 of the act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866: If any person shall willfully remove or cause to be removed, alter or cause to be altered, the canceling or defacing marks on any adhesive stamp, with intent to use the same, or to cause the use of the same, after it shall have been once used, or shall knowingly or willfully sell or buy such washed or restored stamps, or offer the same for sale, or give or expose the same to any person for use, or knowingly use the same or prepare the same with intent for the further use thereof, or if any person shall knowingly and without lawful excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the person accused) have in his possession any washed, restored or altered stamps, which have been removed from any vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, or writing, then, and in every such case, every person so offending, and every person knowingly and willfully aiding, abetting, or assisting in committing any such offense as aforesaid, shall, on conviction thereof, * * be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor not exceeding five years, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Also to section 2 of the amendatory act of April 10, 1869, which is as follows:

And be it further enacted, That section 155 of the act entitled "An act to provide internal revenue to support the government, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes," approved June 30, 1864, as amended by the 9th section of the act of July 13, 1866, be further amended by adding thereto the following: And the fact that any adhesive stamp so bought, sold, offered for sale, used, or had in possession as aforesaid, has been washed or restored by removing or altering the canceling or defacing marks thereon, shall be prima facie proof that such stamp has been once used and removed by the possessor thereof from some vellum, parchment, paper, instrument, or writing, charged with taxes imposed by law, in violation of the provisions of this section.

It is reported that persons in various parts of the country, and under various pretexts, are collecting canceled stamps, and, as it is believed, for the purpose of removing the canceling marks therefrom and preparing them for further use.

All revenue officers are expected and hereby directed to give this matter their special attention, to acquaint the people with the true object for which such stamps are collected, and with the penalties incurred by all who in any way knowingly and willfully aid, abet, and assist in the commission of the offense. It is believed that many stamps are gathered from persons who are ignorant of the use to which they are to be put, and innocent of all intent to defraud the revenue.

The fact that a person is collecting stamps which have once been used is sufficient to arouse strong suspicion, and calls for an immediate investigation; and the possession of washed, restored, or altered stamps is prima facie evidence of guilt. No pains should be spared to insure the detection and punishment of guilty parties.

It is not lawful to record any instrument, document, or paper required by law to be stamped, or any copy thereof, unless a stamp or stamps of the proper amount have been affixed and canceled in the manner required by law; and such instrument or copy and the record thereof are utterly null and void, and cannot be used or admitted as evidence in any court until the defect has been cured as provided in section 158.

All willful violations of the law should be reported to the United States district attorney within and for the district where they are committed.

(Concluded next week.)

CORRESPONDENCE.

NEW YORK, August 14, 1871. Sir-In your issue of the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL of August 12th, I notice a communication signed "Student," and your response thereto. Now, while I cannot furnish the information which is desired, I beg leave to offer the following suggestion, to wit: That the Columbia College or University of the city of New York commence an evening session in October. Let this occupy three or four evenings in each week, and two hours each evening. Such a plan would be heartily welcomed by those anxious to attend legal lectures, and yet unable to attend the afternoon or morning courses. Further, let these colleges reduce their fees; they are too high; they prevent many from attending. Fifty dollars per session is an ample recompense. And by charging such a sum, and rendering the examinations more difficult, both schools would be more highly respected. For now, if you have paid your money, you are sure to receive your diploma, no matter whether you have diligently pursued the studies or not.

Will not the university who will welcome so many to her under-graduate course in the fall be foremost in this, and gain the thanks of many students? And can she not offer some prizes, as does Columbia?

As a reporter, Mr. Stiles is deserving of the highest praise. In preparing the first volume of the American Reports, we had occasion to examine his work upon the 27th Iowa more closely than we otherwise might, and we found, without exception, that his head notes were a faithful reflex of the decisions and his statements of the facts concise and to the point. All his volumes, especially the later ones, exhibit an unusual degree of good judgment and painstaking, which is much more than can be truthfully said of some of the reports of the present day.

The General Statutes of the State of New York for the year 1871, containing all the laws of a public and general nature, passed at the 94th session of the Tegislature: carefully collated with the originals in the office of the Secretary of State, with references to former statutes and decisions. To be continued annually. Weed, Parsons & Co., Albany.

We presume there is hardly a lawyer in active practice who may not, almost daily, be exposed to the risk of advising or acting contrary to some of the general statutes passed at the last session of the legislature. It may be months ere the session laws will be published. Messrs. Weed, Parsons & Co., in the present volume, have timely supplied a great want. We have, at the commencement of the volume, the full titles of all the acts, public and private, passed at the last session of the legislature, 946 in number.

We then have all the acts of a general character, 211 pages, and an index of 17 pages. The volume is

printed to correspond with Edmonds' Statutes at Large. The citations are more extensive than in the preceding volumes of the Statutes at Large, and we suspect are by a new editor, although we are not informed by the title page who he is. There is not a single chapter which has not all the citations which occur to us, except 702, allowing publishers of Sunday papers to recover for advertisements therein, which must have been passed in consequence of the case of Smith v. Wilcox, 19 Barb. 581; 25 id. 341; 24 N. Y. 353. Members of the profession who do not wish to wait for several months, and then be compelled to purchase two immense volumes at much greater expense, will at once purchase the present volume, obtain all the laws of general interest, and be well posted in regard to them before their neighbors are able to secure the session laws.

USURY.-It was said by Johnson that the law against usury is for the protection of creditors as well as debtors; for, if there were no such check, people would be apt, from the temptation of great interest, to lend to desperate persons, by whom they would lose their money.

LEGAL NEWS.

After the acquittal of a man in Cincinnati recently, one of the jurymen rose and suggested that "the acquitted be now recommended to the merciful consideration of the court."

Jules Favre came near being excluded from the council of order of the Paris bar at the recent criminal election. Instead of being near the top of the list, as he used to be, he stood at the bottom.

According to the London Daily News, there are about four thousand female criminals at large on tickets of leave in England, of which number a majority live in London.

Hon. W. Vernon Harcourt, queen's counsel, and a member of parliament, is to be at the head of the jurisprudence department of the social science congress, which meets in Leeds, Eng., October 4th.

The Spanish government have, at the express desire of the French cabinet, consented to the extradition of the Communist prisoners found on Spanish soil. One of the leaders of the Commune has already been arrested and delivered over to the French authorities.

The criminal court at New Orleans is breaking up a system of jury frauds in that city, by which citizens summoned are personated for a consideration, and thus a jury is very easily packed to suit the wishes of evil doers. Some of the jury brokers have been caught and punished.

The grand jury of Sonora, California, recommended in their report that "for the safety and comfort of bald headed men, the loose plastering be removed from the ceiling, or that the sheriff be instructed to furnish parties having business in the court with pillows or suitable shields to cover their heads with."

Commissioner Douglass has reversed the decision of Ex-Commissioner Pleasanton, that a renewal receipt for a policy of insurance is exempt from stamp duty. The commissioner holds that the renewal receipt requires the same stamp as the original policy. The stamp tax referred to yielded the government about half a million yearly.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1871.

NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE

ARRESTS.

Precisely what constitutes a sufficient notice of authority of officers* is not settled by the courts. Such question depends, to a very large extent, on the peculiar circumstances of each case. It has often been discussed in cases of homicide where the officer is killed while endeavoring to preserve the peace in riots and affrays, and the question whether such killing amounted to murder or was only manslaughter, has generally depended upon the question of a proper notification of his authority by the officer.

Officers are conservators of the public peace, and in that right alone interfere in the case of riots and affrays, and it is necessary, in order to make the offense of killing them amount to murder, that the parties killing them should have some notice with what intent they interpose, otherwise the persons engaged may, in the heat and bustle of the affray, imagine that they come to take a part in it. But in these cases a small matter will amount to a due notification. It is sufficient if the peace be commanded, or the officer in any other manner disclose with what intent he interposes. Or if the officer be within his proper district and known, or but generally acknowledged to bear the office he assumes, or if, in order to keep the peace, he produce his staff of office or any other known ensign of authority, the law will presume that the party killing had due notice of his intent, especially if it be in the day-time. In the night, indeed, when such ensigns of authority cannot be distinguished, some further notification is necessary, and commanding the peace, or using words of like import, or notifying of his business, will be sufficient. 1 East, 315.

It is laid down in one case that if upon an affray the officer, or others in assisting him, endeavor to suppress it and preserve the peace, and be killed in so doing, it is murder, though the affray was sudden, and the murderer knew not the officer, because he set himself up against the justice of the realm. Young's Case, 4 Coke, 40.

But to reconcile this with other authorities, it seems that the party killing must have had implied notice of the character in which the officer and his assistants interfered, though not a personal knowledge of them. 1 East, 315. But where the affray is deliberately engaged in by parties determined to make common cause, and to maintain it by force, an officer endeavoring to preserve the peace, if he be generally known and recognized as such, and is within his proper district, need not necessarily declare with what intent

A peace officer, with all the power of a constable to make arrests and preserve the peace, is here intended.

he interposes; his general character as an officer is implied notice of his purpose. It is, however, the duty of private persons interfering to preserve the peace to give express notice of their intention (Fost. 310, 311); for however good their intentions and desire to prevent the continuance of the affray, they are in great danger of being misunderstood by the parties engaged unless their purpose is clearly and unmistakably manifested.

In the foregoing we have considered what notice is necessary to be given by officers interfering in riots and affrays to preserve the public peace.

We will now consider what notice is necessary in making arrests. It is obvious that some notice of the officer's authority must be given, and the party to be arrested should have either implied or express notice of the officer's official character or authority. A recent case decided in the court of appeals (Yates v. The People, 32 N. Y. 509) affords some reasoning pertinent to this subject. Yates was pursued by a shouting mob in the night-time, threatening his life, and he was seeking to escape under just apprehension of great bodily harm if overtaken by them, and in his flight was seized by some person, whom, in selfdefense, he instantly kills, and the person thus killed proves to be an officer seeking his arrest. For this he was indicted for murder in the first degree, tried and convicted at a court of oyer and terminer, in Kings county, in 1865. The judgment was removed into the supreme court by writ of error, where it was affirmed at the general term. From this judgment the prisoner brought a writ of error to the court of appeals. Brown, J., said: "In the progress of the trial it soon became a material inquiry whether the prisoner was aware of the character of the pursuer. There was no proof of actual knowledge, and then occurred the inquiry whether the jury might not be warranted to infer his knowledge from the attending circumstances. Hence, the proof of the officer's uniform and the prisoner's defective vision, the street lamp, and the vicinity thereto of the prisoner at the time of the killing, all these circumstances became of vital consequence; for if there was nothing from which the prisoner's knowledge of the official character of the deceased might be inferred, the measure of the offense charged would descend from murder into one of the degrees of manslaughter." The officer had on his cap and shield, but there was no clear evidence that, with a defective vision in a dark night, the prisoner could see them. "And there was no evidence that he demanded him to surrender, or that he told him he arrested him. There was no evidence that he personally knew the officer." Judge Potter in same case. A new trial was granted. So that it seems an officer being in a regular policeman's uniform, with a shield, is not of itself sufficient notice of official authority, but that the notice should be brought to the knowledge of the party arrested.

Where an officer rushed into a gentleman's bed

chamber early in the morning for the purpose of arresting him, without giving the slightest intimation of his business, and the gentleman, not knowing him, in the impulse of the moment, wounded him with his sword and killed him, this was held to be manslaughter. 1 Hale, 470.

In both the foregoing cases, which are somewhat similar, it is quite probable there would have occurred no homicide had there been given even slight intimation of the official character of the officers, for it appears that simply saying "I arrest you," is a sufficient notification of the officer's authority, and it is at the peril of the party if he kills him after these words are spoken, for it will be murder. 1 Hale, 460. No precise form of words is required; it is sufficient if the party has notice which indicates an official authority, or that the officer comes not as a mere trespasser, but claiming to act under proper authority. Curtis Case, Fost. 135. In the case of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572, where the officer came in presence of the offenders, who had only four hours before committed a felony, and immediately said, "You are my prisoners, surrender," and at the same time pointed a gun at them, it was held, that these words were a sufficient notice of his character as a peace officer. The officer, in this case, exhibited no ensign of authority, was in ordinary citizens' dress, and had no warrant. It was also held, in this case, that if after the commission of a felony the guilty parties flee to avoid an arrest, and within three or four hours are pursued by officers for the purpose of apprehending them at a distance of twelve miles from the place where the crime was committed, it is an immediate and fresh pursuit of the criminals.

Where a party is apprehended in the commission of an offense, or upon fresh pursuit afterward, notice is not necessary, because he must know the reason why he is apprehended. Rex v. Howarth, 1 Moody, 207. Indeed, the arrest in this case was made even by a private person without warrant, and it was expressly laid down, that, when the circumstances are such as to make the intention to apprehend plain to the mind of him who is to be apprehended, he need not have any further notice, and the arrest will be legal and the resistance illegal, the same as if the purpose had been in words announced. The prisoner in this case was discovered while attempting to commit a felony, and immediately fled, and it was in fresh pursuit that the arrest was made; hence the legality of the arrest. People v. Wolven, 7 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 89; Rex v. Hunt, 1 Moody, 93.

In the case of Rex v. Woolmer and Palmer, 9 Moody, 334, a charge of robbery against the prisoners had been made to a watchman who was on duty, dressed in a watchman's coat, and had his lantern. In company with the party making the charge he started after the prisoners, and, on coming up with them, all he said to them was, "You must go back, and come along with me." He did not explain why,

nor was any charge against the prisoners stated. Woolmer said, "Keep off," and drew a sharp instrument from his side. The watchman said, "It's of no use; you must go back." Woolmer then stabbed him, and both Woolmer and Palmer were put on trial. There were no facts in the case that justified such a charge being made to the watchman. The jury found that the prisoners knew him to be a watchman; and on the case reserved a majority of the judges held "that the watchman could legally arrest the prisoner without saying he had a charge of robbery against him, though the prisoner had, in fact, done nothing to warrant the arrest, and that had death ensued it would have been murder." In a former article we have seen that an officer can justify an arrest on a reasonable charge of felony, although it turn out that really no felony was committed. This principle must have entered into the final decision of this last-mentioned case. The kinds of notice by the officers which we have mentioned in the different cases, by implication of law hold, also, in cases where such officers, having warrants directed to them as such to execute, are resisted in the performance of that duty. In Thomas Gordon's Case, 1 East, 315, who was indicted for murdering George Linnell, a constable having a warrant for Gordon's arrest, it appeared that the deceased, at the time he went to the prisoner's house in the day-time, had his constable's staff with him, and gave notice of his business, and that he had before acted as constable of the parish, and was generally known as such. At a conference of all the judges on this case they were of opinion that this was sufficient evidence and notification of his being constable, although there were no proofs of his appointment, or of his having been sworn into office.

Where one Pew said to an officer who came to arrest him, "Stand off; I know you well enough; come at your peril," and the officer, on taking hold of him, was killed, it was held to be murder, although the officer used no words of arrest nor showed his warrant, for possibly he had no time. No notice was necessary in this case, for it was clearly manifest to the officer that Pew knew him by his own words. Cro. Car. 183.

It is only necessary that the party himself who is the object of the arrest should have notice, because none other is immediately concerned, and the officer is not bound to give notice to every person who may think proper officiously to interfere in opposition to him.

Each of the junior counsel in the Tichborne case, now on their way to Australia in search of additional evidence, receives 500 guineas and his expenses.

The ultra-loyal papers of New Zealand complain that at Napier, on the queen's birthday, the courts continued their sessions, and the members of the provincial counsel stubbornly kept their hats upon their heads while the national anthem was being played.