To sum up the characteristics of Judge. Thurman: He was a man of great bodily strength and vigor. He was endowed by nature with a keen, active and comprehensive brain, and this had been broadened and strengthened by constant and long-continued study. He was always a student. He was one of the most thorough scholars in public life. He was a great lawyer and also as great a judge. He was a statesman, who ever had his country's true interests at heart, and who never permitted his country's honor or his own to be tarnished by any act of his. The brightest gem in his crown was unswerving and unyielding honesty in public and private life. His proudest boast, and the only one he was ever heard to make, was:

"Nay, gentlemen, it is simply nonsense to ing, still respected, still honored and still desay that. Mr. C. has explained the whole serving the good will and kindness and supthing himself when he said there are bad men port of all his fellow-beings? in every party. So there are. There are bad men in the Democratic party, bad men in the Republican party, and I should not be surprised if there are bad men even in the Prohibition party. If there is any party that has no bad men in it it must be the Woman's Rights party. I cannot conceive of any other. If there are bad men in any party who commit a crime, is the party to be accountable for it? If a member of one of your churches in this city cheats his neighbor in a horse trade, is the whole church to do penance for that? If a man in your political party commits a crime, are you to go and seek absolution from that sin? I will tell you when a party does become responsible. When a crime is committed by a member or members of a party and that party, instead of setting their faces like flint against the perpetrator of crime, seek to shield him, they take the responsibility on their own shoulders."

I shall never forget the closing words of that powerful argument as they fell from the lips of the venerable lawyer. They seemed to express the last best wish he could utter for the great party, which he had loved during all his life and which had greatly honored him. They were these:

"I never, in all my life, knowingly wronged a human being of a dollar."

PERSONAL INJURIES-NEGLIGENCE.

[Concluded from last week.] and caution situated as they were, and being engaged in such occupation would have exercised, and that such failure and want of such reasonable care caused the injury to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable, unless you find from the evidence that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury complained of, or that the negligence of his coemployees, working in the same building with him caused his injuries.

But, if you find from the evidence that the plaintiff's negligence contributed to his injury, he cannot recover in this action.

The law in this state does not apportion the damages between parties when the joint negligence of both parties causes to one of them an injury. Nor does it permit the plaintiff to recover, although he was less negligent and careless than the defendant. If the injury was the result of the co-operation of concurring negligence of both parties the law permits no recovery.

"But I do want this party, to which I have belonged now more than sixty years, for I began when I was a child; this party which has done so much for me, and which I have conscientiously believed in; which has its faults, as all parties have had their faults; which has been wrong sometimes, as all parties have been wrong; but in which I have believed, to which my faith has been pledged and has been keptI do want that party in the going down of the sun of my life, when I shall look for the last time abroad on the earth-I do want to see that party still standing, still respected, still honored and still deserving the good will and kindness and support of all my fellow-beings." This was the thought, the aspiration of a true lover of his country and a statesman who had her well being at heart. In a country Then the question arises, was the plaintiff like ours, great parties are a necessity. guilty of negligence and want of due care and Only by such organizations can the peo- caution, in what he did which contributed to his ple act effectively, and make their will own injuries? Could the plaintiff by the exerknown. Upon their honesty and integrity de- cise of ordinary care; such care as persons of pends the welfare of the Republic. What bet- ordinary prudence would have exercised under ter guarantee can a man have in his dying like or similar circumstances, have avoided the hour for the future usefulness and happiness injury? If he could then he is not entitled to of his country, than to see his party still stand-recover.

termine under all the circumstances of this case, whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in continuing to work in said atmosphere, or whether he was not.

You should take into account the kind of I leave it as a question of fact for you to dework the plaintiff was engaged in, the manner in which he did it and all the facts and circumstances connected with the case, and then say from all those facts, whether the plaintiff acted as a prudent and careful man under the same or similar circumstances would have acted.

If you find from the evidence given you in this case that the condition of the atmosphere in said building was in fact unwholesome and that the plaintiff knew of said fact, was it negligence and carelessness upon his part to remain in said building and atmosphere?

It was the plaintiff's duty to use the same care and caution that men of ordinary care and prudence would have used under like or simi

lar circumstances.

If you find from the evidence given you in this case, that the plaintiff negligently and carelessly exposed himself to unwholesome gases, or negligently remained in a severe draft or wind, and that his own negligence in so doing caused or contributed to his injuries, then I say to you that he could not recover in this action.

And in determining this question you should look to and consider all the evidence which has been given to you upon the trial of this case, the manner in which the plaintiff was at work, the knowledge which he had of the condition of the atmosphere, and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, and then say from it all whether the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed to his injuries.

Could the plaintiff by the use of ordinary care and prudence have avoided the injury? If he could he was guilty of negligence; if he could not then he was not guilty of negligence. ''. Again, I say to you, if you find from the evidence given you in this case, that the plaintiff did know of the unwholesome condition of said atmosphere, and remained in the employ of the defendant under a promise on the part of the defendant or its servants duly authorized, that the defective condition would be remedied, then I say to you that, whether said acts of the plaintiff in continuing to work under such conditions were negligence is a question of fact for you to determine under all the facts and circumstances of this particular

case.

Would a man of ordinary care and prudence under the same or similar circumstances, have continued at work under such conditions or would he not?

And in determining this question, all the facts and circumstances as given to you by the evidence in this case should be carefully considered by you

If you find from the evidence given you in this case, that the atmosphere in said room was poisonous and unwholesome, and you further find that the plaintiff knew of the fact, but did not know the effect that it would have upon his person or system; before he would be entitled to recover from the defendant on account of the dangerous and poisonous condition of which he did not know, he must show by a said atmosphere in said building, the effect of preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, through its agents and servants, knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care ought to have known of the dangerous effects of said poisonous and dangerous atmosphere upon the system and person of the plaintiff.

The mere fact that the plaintiff knew of the dangerous condition of the said atmosphere, but did not know the extent of its danger upon his system or person, would not give him a greater right to recover against the defendant then, as though he did know the effect that the atmosphere would have upon his system; unless he shows that the defendant through its agents and servants also knew or had reasonable grounds for knowing the dangerous effect of said atmosphere upon the plaintiff's person and system, and placed the plaintiff there to work with said knowledge on the part of defendant, or with a duty to have said knowledge.

It is admitted on the trial of this case that the defendant, The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway company was organized and incorporated on or about September 23d, 1893, by a consolidation of The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railroad company with The Cleveland Southwestern Railway company, and that said The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway company succeeded to all the rights and liabilities of The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railroad company.

It is therefore admitted that if the said The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railroad company was liable for the injuries to plaintiff, that by said consolidation the said The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway company would be liable in this action if The Cleveland,

The plaintiff claims that The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway company is only liable because the said The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railroad company was liable for causing the injury to plaintiff, and the plain-case, you should look to and consider all the tiff further admits if The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railroad company was not liable, then as a matter of course The Cleveland, Lorain and Wheeling Railway company would

THE OHIO DECISIONS SERIES,

COVERING EVERY BRANCH OF OHIO CASE LAW.

SUPREME COURT. One volume a year advance sheets of decisions announced by the Supreme Court.

FEDERAL COURTS. One volume a year of cases decided in Federal Courts held in Ohio, covering Ohio cases.

CIRCUIT COURTS. One volume a year containing all reported cases decided by the Circuit Courts of Ohio.

LOWER COURTS. One volume a year made up of select cases decided in the Superior, Common Pleas and Probate Courts.

This series began in 1894, but will e filled soon by reprints of earlier cases, with additions of many unpublished ones.

THE PROMINENT FEATURES OF THIS SERIES ARE: Large Volumes. No reports ever published in Ohio have had half the amount of matter, or the completeness and correctness.

Advance Sheets. The cases decided each week are put in type by us as fast as received, and advance sheets of the matter for the different volumes printed, and sent out weekly as a supplement to the OHIO LEGAL NEWS, free to all its subscribers.

Permanent Round Volumes take the place of returning the weekly parts for binding, as the advance sheets are upon poor paper, not for binding, and may be destroyed when the bound volumes are received. In this way, instead of having the weekly parts loose about the office, some of which become lost, and the whole inaccessible, you get indexed volumes for quick reference, as soon as complete.

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE.

Volumes bound in full sheep, delivered to subscribers, $2.50 per volume. With volumes one, two and three, the Ohio Digest for 1895 without charge.

The Cheapest, Fullest and Best Ohio Reports, and as official as possible, as every decision is read and approved by the rendering court before final publication.

THE LANING PRINTING CO., Publishers,

NORWALK, OHIO.

The publishers of the LEGAL NEWS now_nave the contract for publishing the Supreme Court Reports of the state, and are enabled to attach advance sheets of these volumes to the LEGAL NEWS. as a second

In the case of Chamberlain v. Wright, decided by the supreme court of Texas [35 S. W. Rep., 707], in which it was held that where a perty erases the marginal figures in a note, and then writes at the top of the note other figures with the words "correct amount" following them, in order to correct a mutual mistake resulting from an error in calculation, is not such an alteration as will render the note void.

The holder of a first mortgage on real estate is not bound by a judgment rendered in an action brought for the foreclosure of a second mortgage upon the same premises, and his lien is not affected by the proceedings had therein, when he was a party to such action, and had no opportunity to be heard therein, was so held in the case of Fergerson v. Tarbox, decided by the supreme court of Kansas [44 Pac. Rep., 905].

Attorney-General Monnett, last week, caused

supplement, without charge. These sheets are only execution to be issued upon the property of

for temporary use and do not include indexes.

Bound copies of Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and Vol. 3 of the Ohio Decisions can be had at $2.50 per volume, if bound in full sheep, or $2.25 per volume in half sheep.

Bound volumes of Vol. 1. OHIO LEGAL NEWS (Toledo Legal News) will be furnished at $2.00 per volume.

Bound copies of Vols. 1, 2 or 3 of Ohio Decisions, or

of the LEGAL NEWS will be sent in exchange for the

advance sheets, at $1.00 per volume in full sheep or 75

cents in half sheep.

the Adams, United States, and American Express company, as a result of the decision of the supreme court, June 23, in the case of The Adams Express Company v. State, in which the holding of the lower courts was affirmed, regarding the recovery of an excise tax levied against the companies under a new law (91 O. L., 237), which the supreme court has held to be valid.

It is a very perplexing and sometimes a very difficult task for a court to determine just what should be considered as necessaries, and in the case of Cobbey v. Buchanan, [67 N.

Entered at the Postoffice, Norwalk. Ohio, as second W. Rep.], the supreme court of Nebraska says

class matter.

The supreme court of Indiana, in the case of Huber Manufacturing Company v. Busey [43 N. E. Rep, 967], held that it a verbal notice of a breach of warranty is given, accepted, and acted upon, where a written notice has been stipulated for, the giving of the written notice is waived.

The Republicans of the Fifth Judicial circuit of Ohio, met in Newark, Licking county, last week Wednesday to nominate a successor to Judge Charles H. Kibler, who was elected for a short term about a year ago, and who has proven himself so eminently qualified for the position, that he was nominated to succeed himself.

that the term "necessaries' cannot be defined by a general rule applicable to all cases. The question of what are necessaries is a mixed one of law and fact, to be determined in each case from the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In a general way, it may be said that the necessaries for which a minor is liable are such things as are necessary to his support, use and comfort, comporting with his condition and circumstances in life. In the case cited above the court said, that where at the request of a minor, au attorney examined the public records and advised the minor as to his rights to certain property. inherited from his deceased father, that such services rendered are not necessaries for which a minor is liable.