First-By the statute, the breaking and entering must have been committed in the night season.

Second-There must be a forcible breaking and entry into a barn.

with intent then and there and thereby can be said to be lawfully guilty of the certain personal property of great value, crime of burglary: the goods and chattels of them, the said Alpheus Stump and Hiram Stump, in said building, to wit,, in said barn, then and there being, unlawfully to steal, take and carry away, and twenty-five bushels of oats of the value of eight dollars, the personal property of them, the said Alpheus Stump and Hiram Stump, in said building, to wit, in said barn, then and there being found, then and there unlawfully did steal, take and carry away," etc.

The second count of the indictment you are not to consider.

Third-The breaking and entry must be accompanied with intent to commit the specific offense of stealing property of some value therefrom.

Fourth-That the defendant on trial sion of the burglary charged in the first is guilty of participating in the commis

count of the indictment.

Firstly, we now define what in law is understood to be the night season. Night season consists of the period of time from the termination of daylight in the evening, to the earliest dawn in the morning.

As to the second condition there must be a forcible breaking and this breaking must precede the entry complained of.

There is, however, another count in the indictment which you are to consider, to wit, the third count, which charges as ollows: "That the said Andrew Uuding Valentine Unding and Joseph Walshenberg, aforesaid, late of The statute requires that the breaking the county aforesaid, on the day and must be forcible; but it does not define date aforesaid, at the county of Summit the degree of force requisite to constitute aforesaid, unlawfully did steal, take and the crime. So we say to you, that if you find from the evidence, that the building carry away twenty-five bushels of oats set out in the first count of the indictof the value of eight dollars and one ment to be a barn, such as has been bushel of corn of the value of thirty- described to you by the evidence, though five cents, the property of Alpheus you should find that the accused got Stump and Hiram Stump; two horse within the body of the barn through unblankets of the value of eight dollars, evidence, that the barn contained a graclosed openings, yet if you find from the one duster of the value of three dollars, nary within its outer walls, which graone laprobe of the value of one dollar nary was used for the storage of grain, and one pruning knife of the value of the produce of said farm, and was a subeighty cents, the property of Alpheus stantial and permanent structure, part and parcel of said barn, say from ten to Stump; two dusters of the value of six twelve feet by about twenty-two lateral dollars, one laprobe of the value of one area, and some seven feet high, and so dollar and three buggy whips of the constructed and maintained that access value of one dollar, the property of to said granary could only be had either Hiram Stump, and all of the amount by breaking through the walls of said and value of twenty-nine dollars and granary, or through a door constructed and hung in the usual manner and fasfifteen cents;" etc. tened by staples and hasp and spring padlock, such as was exhibited to you in evidence, and you find that the granary door was so fastened, the force exerted to open the door under such conditions and said door was opened by unfastening said lock and opening the hasp and staples,

To constitute the offense of burglary charged in this indictment, four elements are essential, each of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, as hereinafter. defined, before the accused

the force so exerted, would constitute, guilty of both the burglary and the larsuch forcible breaking as the statute re- ceny. But the facts of burglary, of larquires to constitute a burglarious break- ceny, and of possession of the stolen ing. And such breaking into such a granary, would also constitute burglary of a barn under the statute, if in other respects the evidence brings the case within and is consistent with our instructions to you.

goods soon thereafter by the accused, do not alone legally establish his guilt of either the burglary or the larceny.

The inculpatory evidence, much of it being circumstantial and not direct, it is proper that we should instruct you as to It is not necessary to constitute burg- the character and effect of such evidence. lary, that the accused should actually What we mean by circuinstantial evihave stolen any property; it is sufficient dence, is the proof of such facts and cirif the breaking and entering was made cumstances connected with and concernwith the specific intent to steal. ing the commission

The term steal means, in lega! contemplation, the wrongful and fraudulent taking of the property of another, of some intrinsic or substantial value, without his assent, and with the intent to deprive the owner thereof permanently.

Under the allegation of larceny contained in the indictment, it is essential for the state to prove that the property taken was of some intrinsic value, and was the property of the prosecuting witnesses, the two Stumps, Alpheus and Hiram.

of the offense charged, as tend to show the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Where this kind of evidence is relied on, the rule is, that in order to convict, you must find the circumstances clearly proved as facts, and when they are so proved, they must be of such force and character as to clearly and unequivocally imply his guilt of the crime charged, and not consistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.

Circumstantial evidence may be as satisfactory as direct evidence, if the cirFourthly, it must appear that the de-cumstances. re satisfactorily established fendant on trial, either by and of himself, and the inference reasonably follows. or in concert with the other defendants, We say this to you, that you may not co-operated in committing the crime be prejudiced against that class of evicharged. dence.

(GENERAL CHARGE.).

*

*

*

If the defendant knowingly and intentionally did anything reasonably calculated to aid and abet, and did thereby aid and abet Andrew Unding and Valen- You may find the accused guilty of tine Unding, or either of them, in com- the first count in the indictment or you mitting the burglary, so that you can say may find him not guilty of the fire count his acts substantially co-operated with of the indictment, as the evidence may the acts of the other defendants in com- guide you, and still find the accused mitting the crime charged, or either of guilty of the third couut of the indict-. them, then the accused may be found ment which charges larceny only. guilty, though he did not actually do the If you find the defendant guilty of breaking, or take away the property burglary as charged in the first count of stolen, if in other respects your finding the indictment, you will sign the form of comes under the provisions and limita- verdict which finds defendant guilty as tions of our instructions to you. charged in the first count of the indictThe fact that the barn was burglar-ment, and sign that form by your foreiously entered, goods stolen therefrom, and the possession by the accused soon thereafter, of the goods stolen, or any part thereof, are competent evidence to go to you, and with the other circumstances indicative of guilt, such as may afford a strong presumption of the fact of the guilt of the accused, if satisfactorily proved, will warrant you in finding him

man.

If you find the defendant not guilty of burglary, but find him guilty of larceny only, you may render a general verdict of not guilty on the first count of the indictment, and find him guilty on the third count of the indictment, and assess the value of the property stolen, and sign that form of verdict by your foreman.

OUR HOLIDAY OFFERS!

UNTIL $9.00 FOR $6.00

JAN. 1,

VOLS. 1, 2 AND 3, OHIO DECISIONS

AND THE

ANNUAL OHIO DIGEST FOR 1895.

The price of all which at other times is $9.00, now delivered for $6.00 cash with the order.

To those who have either Volume One or Two, the other volumes will be delivered at $1.75 per volume.

DURING
DECEMBER

$9.50 FOR $7.50

THE OHIO LEGAL NEWS FOR 1895

AND

VOLS. 4, 5 AND 6, OHIO DECISIONS,

The regular price of the Decisions is $2.50 per volume, and for the NEWS $2.00 per year. We send the whole, delivered for $7.50 payable $2.50 on delivery of each of the three volumes of Decisions.

THE LANING PRINTING CO.

NORWALK, OHIO.

At a meeting of The Toledo Bar Association, held on Saturday, December 28, 1895, the folOne volume each year, beginning with November.lowing were elected officers for the ensuing

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.00 PER YEAR, IN ADVANCE.

started. He did not recover consciousness and died half an hour later at the city hospital. He leaves a widow and two children, one of them a young man recently appointed to West

Point.

is displayed. Following the passage of the
Kentucky law, an enterprising citizen rented
a five- acre lot near an interior town called
Pineville, and mailed circulars to a large num-
ber of foreign corporation doing business in
the state, in which he proposed to act as their
agent and display their sign for a fee of five
dollars a year.
It is said many corporations
accepted his offer, and that his lot is as full of
signs as a crowded graveyard of marble slabs.
The corporations so doing, however, are sub-

"Mr. Slattery was a well read lawyer of considerable practice. His integrity and his generous character had endeared him to the entire profession, and the news of his death cast a gloom over every law office in the city. It viv-ject to suit at Pineville, and it is an open quesidly recalled the somewhat similar accident wherein Isaac M. Jordan lost his life in the Lincoln Inn Court Building. Mr. Slattery came to this city from Athens early in his professional career and was for some time a mem

ber of the firm of Lincoln, Stephens & Slattery. He subsequently became associated with Hon. Thos. A. Logan. The firm of Logan & Slattery continued a number of years. More recently Mr. Slattery has been alone in the practice."

tion whether there would be any advantage in
going down there to defend a claim before a
jury from the Kentucky mountains.-Court
Index.

THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND TEN-
URES.

[Paper read before the Toledo Bar Association by

CHARLES ASHLEY, ESQ.]

For a long time after the dawn of civilization, land was the chief form of wealth, far more than equal to all others combined. This fact explains the great consideration given to it at the time when The interesting question of the constitutionality of the Hard Law has been taken by our system of law was evolving during C. W. Baker, at Cincinnati, to the circuit court. the middle ages in England. The chief The Hard law is an enactment of the Ohio form of wealth was the basis of the relegislature of 1894, which provides that upon organization of society, for the feudal the payment of a fee a foreign corporation may system derived its strength from the register at Columbus, and thereby become exempt from attachment in this state. The case mode in which land titles were heldin which the law is to be tested is that of Peur-land being universally held by an inferior rung Bros. v. Carter-Crume, a West Virginia of a superior, to whom the former was corporation, which has complied with the pro- bound to render services in return for the visions of this law. The company has assets within this jurisdiction which were attached use of the land. Money rental or rental by the plaintiffs. A motion to dissolve the in kind (as of agricultural produce) was attachment was granted by Judge Sayler, and not at first of as much importance as the the case goes up on appeal from that ruling. services rendered the liege lord by the The ground upon which the law will be attacked is that it is not of uniform operation; vassal. The rent was frequently, if not that is, it gives to foreign corporations pay- usually, of a merely nominal amount, ing a fee for registering an exemption which and the real consideration of the grant is not enjoyed by other foreign corporations employing an equal amount of capital, and doing an equal amount of business in Ohio. And there is no provision in the law requiring foreign corporations complying with its terms, to keep an agent in this state upon whom service may be had.

The Standard Wagon Co., a Kentucky corporation, sought after their first assignment to protect themselves against attachment by complying with this law. On the eve of the second assignment, however, the Oak Leather Co., represented by Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey, made a levy under a suit in attachment regardless of the Hard law. The question of the validity of the attachment has not as yet been raised in that case.

was political, and was so understood.

Land, therefore, has been held in extraordinarily high esteem by the English race for several hundred years. After the ordinary cause of esteem given to land—namely, its political value, had to some extent passed away-the high estimation of land continued to be felt, and the first use of newly acquired wealth in England down to this day, is the purchase of a fine landed estate. The charmingly equable climate of England has contributed to the value in which it In some of the states where a law similar to is held, as well as economic maxims sumthe one in question has been enacted, there is ming up the experience of the race, such a provision attached which requires that for- as "Keep your land and your land will eign corporations conforming to its provisions keep you." It can hardly be doubted but must maintain an agent in the state, upon whom service on the corporation may be ob- that the solemnity and legal care which tained and where the sign of the corporation has always been deemed requisite for the