Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ide, U. S. S. C., 436. McAlpine v. Union Pac. R. Co. U. S. C. C. Kan., 338. McClintock v. Pennsylvania R. Co., S. C. Pa., 255. McGary v. Bevington, S. C. O., 37. McGinnis v. Egbert, S. C. Cal., 298. McGuire v. State, S. C. O. 336. McIntire v. Kamm, S. C. Oreg., 495, 498. McKeehan v. McKeehan, S. C. Mo., 235. McKinne v. California, etc., R. Co., S. C. Cal., 199. McLennan v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., U. S. C. C. Io., 118. Mack v. Adler, U. S. C. C. Ark., 155. Mackall v. Richards, U. S. S. C., 377. Mackey v. Fullerton, S. C. Colo., 94. Magnusson v. Williams, S. C. III., 95, 98, 116. Maine v. Kelly, S. J. C. Me., 72. Maish v. Bird, U. S. C. C. Io., 138, 158. MALCOMSON V. SCOTT. S. C. Mich., 426. Maline v. Morton, S. C. Mo., 236. Malone v. Roby, S. C. Wis., 377. Markham v. Simpson, U. S. D. C. N. Y., 275. Marlatt v. Marlatt, S. C. Pa. 58. MARTIN V. HAUSMÁN, U. S. C. C. Mo., 83. Martin v. Northwestern Fuel Co., U. S. C. C. Minn., 156. Martin v. State, S. C. Tex., 477. Martin v. Thibaut, S. C. La., 119. Maryland v. Baldwin, U. S. S. C., 376, 377. Mast v. Easton, S. C. Minn., 316. Matthew's Appeal, S. C. Pa. 76. Melcher v. Exchange Bank, S. C. Mo., 273. Mercer Co. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Stranahan, S. C. Pa., 76. Merchant's Bank of Macon v. Central Bank of Georgia, U. S. C. C. Ga., 115. Merchant's Ins. Co. v. Houck, S. C. Mo., 38. Merriam v. Hemple, S. C. Neb., 358. Merrill v. Monticello, U. S. C. C. Ind., 159. Mersman v. Werges, S. C. U. S., 48. Miller v. Ruble, S. C. Pa., 372. Miller v. Sells, S. C. Cal., 198. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Woodworth, S. C. Minn., 19. Miller v. Creditors, S. C. La., 315. Mobile Savings Bank v. supervisors of Oktibeha Co., U. S. D. C. Miss., 159. Moody v. Cass County, S. C. Mo., 418. Moony v. People, S. C. Ill., 118. Moore v. Clear Lake Water Works, S. C. Cal., 217. Moore v. Monroe, S. C. Io., 66. Moore v. Wabash, etc., R Co., S. C. Mo., 237. Mooring v. McBride, S. C. Tex., 95. Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Tygard, S. C. Mo., 237. Morgan, ex parte, U. S. S. C., 396. Morrin v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., S. C. Minn., 314. Morse v. Cheney, U. S. C. C. Conn., 175. Mosher v. Rogers, S. O. Ill., 255, 275, 316. Moss V. COм., S. С. Ра., 85. Mudge v. Parker, S. J. C. Mass., 336. Mulberger v. Koenig, S. C. Wis., 356. Mulcrone v. American Lumber Co., S. C. Mich., 434. Muldoon v. Lynch, S. C. Cal., 337. Mullen v. Spangenberg, S. C. Ill., 255, 256. Murphy v. Factors' & Traders' Co., S. C. La., 57. Myer v. Gage, U. S. S. C., 395. National, etc. Bank v. Price, U. S. C. C. Mass., 257. Neff v. Smyth, S. C. Ill., 77, 94. Neisrath, estate of, S. C. Cal., 198. New Orleans City v. New Orleans, etc. R. Co., S. C. La., 59. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Board of Assessors, S. New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Delamore, U. S. S. C., 478. North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. Morrissey, S. C. Ill., 136. Northrup v. Hall, S. J. C. Me., 293. Northwestern, etc. Bank v. Jarvis, Manitoba Q. B., 255. O'Brien v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., U. S. C. C. Minn., 158. Ogle v. Ogle, S. C. Com. O., 159. Oppenheimer v. Wright, S. C. Pa., 236. Oregonian R. Co. v. Oregonian R. etc. Nav. Co., U. S. C. O'Rorke . Union Pacific R. Co., U. S. C. C. Colo., 118. Oteri v. Oteri, S. C. La., 96. ¿ Palmer v. Snell, S. C. Ill., 76. PALMS V. SKAWANO COUNTY, S. C. Wis., 44. Patterson v. Detroit, etc. R. Co., S. C. Mich., 212. Peck v. Cooper, S. C. Ill., 234, 255, 275. Pennsylvania Co. v. Frana, S. C. Ill., 212, 214, 236. People v. Cunningham, S. C. Cal., 116. People v. Fagin, S. C. Cal., 356. People v. Gold Run, etc, Co., S. C. Cal., 95. People v. Halliday, S. C. Cal., 297. People v. Platt, S. C. Cal., 497. People v. Scott, S. C. Mich., 212. People v. Swift, S. C. Cal., 199. People v. Tomlinson, S. C. Cal., 197. People v. Treadwell, S. C. Cal., 296. People's Ins. Co. v. McDonald, S. C. O., 456. Perkin's Appeal, S. C. Pa., 498. Perrin v. Lepper, S. C. Mich., 476. PESCHEL V. CHICAGO, ETC. R. Co., S. C. Wis., 203. Peter v. Prettyman, Md. Ct. App., 236. Peters v. Railroad Co., S. C. O., 59. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v, Hoeflick, Md. Ct. App., 135. Phillips v Meily, S. C. Pa., 234. Pierce v. Miles, S. C Mont., 355. Pittsburgh Ins. Co. v. Frazel, S. C. Pa., 314. Poindexter v. Greenhow, U. S. S. C., 417. Pope v. Cheney, U. S. C. C. Io., 97. Powers v. Raymond, S. J. C. Mass., 136. Preston v. Canadian, etc. Bank, U. S. D. C. Ill., 335. Price v. Coleman, U. S. C. C. Mass., 257. Prince v. International, etc. R. Co., S. C. Tex., 479. Priest v. White, S. C. Mo., 157. Priest v. White, S. C. Mo., 234. Prudential Ass'n Co. v. Etna Ins. Co., U. S. C. C. Conn. 435. Pueblo, etc. R. Co. v. Berhoar, S. C. Cal, 298. Pupke v. Churchill, St. L. Ct. App., 69. Railway v. Sullivan, S. C. Tex., 337. Randolph v. Quidnick, U. S. C. C. R. I., 396. Reed v. Radigan, S. C. O., 130. Reg v. DeBanks, Eng. Sup. Ct., 58. Reg v. Doutre, Eng. Priv. Council, 176. Rensens v Mexican National Construction Co., U. S. C C.N. Y., 37. Reynolds v. McMullen, S. C. Mich., 435. Rice v. Nixon, S. C. Ind., 38. Richardson v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., S. C. Wis., 172. Roberts v. Noyes, S. J. C. Me., 156. Robertson v. Wabash, etc. R. Co., S. C. Mo.. 237. Robinson v. Clark, S. J. C. Me., 212, 214. Rounsaville v. Hazen, S. C. Kan., 196, 197. Roussell v. Kirkbride, S. C. Tex., 97. Royal Templars of Temperance v. Curd, S. C. Ill., 117. Royall. ex parte U. S. S. Č., 208. Ryan v. Davis, S. C. Mont., 357. Ryan v. Ulmer, S. C. Pa., 498. Saginaw, etc. R. Co. v. Chappell, S. C. Mich, 215, 216. Sanford v. Bartholomew, S. C. Kan., 217. Sandford v. Finkle, S. C. Ill., 234, 235, 236, 256. Sargent v. George, S. C. Vt., 117. SAWYER V. SAWYER, Eng. Ct. App., 242. SCHNEIDER V. SANSUM, S. C. Tex., 7. Schroeder v. Lloyd. S. C. Cal., 198. Schum v. Pennsylvania R Co., S. C. Pa., 298. Scott v. Seventy-five Tons of Pig Iron, U. S. D. C. Conn., 338. Seixas v. Brugier, S. C. La., 456. Semple v. Vicksburg, S. C. Miss., 497. Shaw v. State. S. C. Neb., 355. Shea v. Reemis, S. C. La., 58. Sheffey v. Gardiner, S. C. App. Va., 336. 338. SHORT V. MCGRUDER, U S. C. C. Va., 85. Smith v. Stoker, S. C. Colo., 496. Smith v. Woodville Con. S. M. Co., S. C. Cal., 297. Soche's Appeal, S. C. Pa., 74. SOON HING V. CROWLEY, U. S. S. C., 382. Spensley v. Lancashire Ins. Co., S. C. Wis., 356. Spring v. Hyde Park, S. C. Mass., 117. Stachelberg v. Ponee. U. S. C. C. Me., 436. State v. Adams, S. C. Mo., 216. State v. Androscoggin R. Co., S. J. C. Me., 177. State v. Asowy, S. C. La., 175. State v. Blount, S. C. Mo., 458. STATE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, S. C. Wis., 425. State v. Brown, S. C. Mo,, 418. State v. Burrows, S. C. Kan., 196. State v. Cummings, S. C. Neb., 376. STATE V. EVANS, S. C. Mo., 102. State v. Grady, S. C. Mo., 234. State v. Groning, S. C. Kan., 196. State v. Hayward, S. C. Mo., 37. State v. Hoblitzelie, S. C. Mo., 457. State v. Melton, S. C. La., 175. State v. People's, etc., Ass'n, S. C. O., 455, 457. State v. Price, S. C. La., 175. State v Probate Court, S. C. Minn., 456. State v. Ray, S. C. Mo., 157. State v. Reilly, S. C. La., 136. State v. Ronearo, S. C. La., 175. STATE V. SHELTON, S. C. (Reed, J.), 122. State v. St. Louis Co., S. C. Mo., 216. State v. Thompson, S. C. Mo., 37. Me., 296. State v. Waterworks Co., S. C. La., 57. Stebbins v. Township of Keane, S. C. Mich., 433. Steib v. Whitehead, S. C. Ill., 57, 60. Stensrud v. Delamater, S. C. Mich., 213. Stepp v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., S. C. Mo., 274. Stevens v. Fisk, S. C. Canada, 297. Stevens v. King, Kennebec, Me., 296. Stiger v. Bent, S. C. Ill., 36, 37, 38, 56, 57, 58, 60. St. Louis Board Public Schools v. Broadway Savings Bank, S. C. Mo., 238. St. Louis, etc. Line v. Red River, etc., Line, U. S. D. C. La., 174. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick Co., S. C. Mo., 273, St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, U. S. S. C., 436. St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Wyman, U. S. C. C. Colo., 116. Stock Co. v. Weber, S. C. Com. O., 336. Stokes v. New Jersey Pottery Co., S. C. N. J., 110. Stone v. Houghton, S. J. Č. Mass., 336. Story v. Insurance Co., S. C. I a., 176. Straat v. O'Neil, S. C. Mo., 212. Straat v. O'Neil, S. C. Mo, 308. Sturges v. Carter, U. S. S. C., 479. Succession of Baumgarden, S. C. La., 314. Successi n of Nicholson, S. C. La., 314. Succession of Reiger, S. C. La., 175. Succession of Townsend, S. C. La., 118. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, S. C. Pa. 134. Tandler v. Saunders, S C. Mich., 216. Tomlinson v. Earnshaw, S. C. Ill., 255. Town of Durango v. Pennington, S. C. Colo., 496. Umlauf v. Umlauf, S. S. III., 236, 315. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, S. C. Kan., 414. United States v. Mason, . S. C. C. Va. 258. United States v. Minor, U. S. S. C. 397. Unity v. Belgrade, S. J C. Me., 176. U. S. Distilling Co. v. City of Chicago, S. C. Ill., 137. Valle v. Zeigler, S. C. Mo., 238. Valle v. Zeigler, S. C. Mo., 271. Vawter v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., S. C. Mo., 352. Vehue v. Mosher, S. J. C. Me., 93. Venard v. Old Hickory Mining Co., S. C. Oreg., 337. Venters v. State, Tex. Ct. App., 493. Veozie v. Forsaith, S. C. Me., 18. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co. v. State, S. C. Miss., 498. Vimont v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., S. C. Io., 371. Vinton v. Beamer, S. C. Mich., 434. Valland v. Wilcox, S. C. Neb., 435. Wade v. Bessey, S. J. C. Me., 174. Wagonblast v. Whitney, S. C. Oreg., 357. Walker v. Ray, S. C. III., 136, 137, 138. Wallace's Appeal, S. C. Pa., 237. Walmsley v Levy, S. C. La., 137. Wamsutta Mills v. Old Colony Steamboat Co., S. J. C. Mass., 235. Wau Yin in re, U. S. D. C. Oreg., 255, 257. Wardlow v. List, S. C. Conn., 237. Warner v. Johnson, S. C. Io., 19. Warrensburg Co-operative Building Association v. Zoll, S. C. Mo., 36. Wartner v. State, S. C. Ind., 495. Washburn, etc., Man'g Co. v. Brooks, Manitoba Q. B., 255. Washburn, etc., Man'g Co. v. Cincinnati Barbed Wire Co., U. S. C. C. O., 275. Washburn, etc., Man'g Co. v. Scuff, etc., Co., U. S. C. C. Pa., 254, 274. Wasson v. Palmer, S. C. Neb., 358. Watts v. Owens, S. C. Wis., 357. Westbrook v. Miller, S. C. Mich., 292. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co., U. S. C. C. Ind., 458. WEST VIRGINIA TRANS. Co. v. SWEESER, S. C. App. W. Va. 363. Wharton v. Stoutenburgh, N. J. Ct. Er. and App., 457. Wheatley in re, Eng. High Ct. Ch. Div., 177. White v. Equitable Nuptial Union, S. C. Ala., 288. White v. Milwaukee City R. Co., S. C. Wis., 11. Wilkin v. St. Paul City, S. C. Minn., 315. Wilkinson v. Railroad Co., S. C. Mont., 357. Wimpey v. Evans, S. C. Mo., 237. Winch v. Norman, S. C. Io., 18. Windle v. Bonebrake, U. S. C. C. Kan., 338. Wingo v. State, S. C. Miss., 495. Wise v. Joplin R. Co., S. C. Mo., 275. Wontack v. Geist. S. C. Pa., 298. Wood v. McDonald, S. C. Cal., 355. Woodworth v. Mills, S. C. Wis., 58. Tatro v. French, S. C. Kan., 217. Taylor v. Boyd, S. C. Tex., 435. TELLER V. PEOPLE, S. C. Colo., 43. Temple v. Lemon, S. C. Ill., 136. TEMPLE V. LEMON, S. C. III., 484. Tubner v. California Street R. Co., S. C. Cal., 97. TEXAS PACIFIC R. Co. v. ANDERSON, Tex. Ct. App., 123. Texas Pacific R. Co. v. Bond, S. C. Tex., 74. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Graves, S. C. Tex., 476. The Hettie Ellis, U. S. C C. La., 174. The J. F. Warner, U. S. D. C. Mich., 174. The Kingston, U. S. D. C. N. J., 337. Thayer v. Life Association of America, U. S. S. C., 109. THOMAS V. CHAPMAN, S. C. Tex., 63. THOMAS V. PLACERVILLE ETC., MINING CO., S. C. Cal., 162. Thompson v. Henry, S. C. Mo., 416. Thompson v. Wooster, U. S. S. C., 396. TOLMAN V. PHELPS, S. C. D. C., 122. Toledo City v. Cane, S. C. Com. O., 62. Wood v. Union, etc., B'ld'g Ass'n, S. C. Wis., 356. WOODGATE v. GREAT WESTERN R. Co., 224. Woodworth v. Raymond, S. C Conn., 116. Woodward v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., S. C. Mo., 274. York v. Commonwealth, S. C. Ky., 96. Young v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., S. C. Mich., 479. Young v. Rattray, Quebec Q. B., 176. Zibold, ex parte, U. S. D. C. Kan., 431. ST. LOUIS, JANUARY 2, 1885. CURRENT EVENTS. The Central Law Journal, except when ordered to do so by the Judge of the Supreme Court who writes the opinion. In this particular case, we understand that it was not the intention to report the evidence, but that the Court was induced to order it to be done by the conduct of the plaintiff in the case, who, after the rendition of the Court's opinion, wrote private letters to the Judges charging them with having libelled her character. This is some extenuation; but it by no means justifies the publishing of a mass of testimony so vile and indecent that, if it were printed anywhere except in a law book, it would be rejected as obscene literature by the Post Office Department. 178 Mo. 153. AFFIRMING DECISIONS WITHOUT WRITING OPINIONS.-The Legal Adviser, (Chicago), deplores the existence of the statute of Illinois which permits the Judges of the Appellate Courts to give their decisions orally in case the decision of the court below is affirmed. The statute was no doubt enacted in order to facilitate the dispatch of business. It was probably a choice between the evil of having cases decided badly and not having them decided at all. The wisdom of it may The wisdom of it may well be doubted. The trouble is, that judges who are relieved from the necessity of writing out their reasons for their decisions, fall into the habit of acting hastily and carelessly. We believe that the decisions of all appellate courts on the merits of controversies ought to be in writing, and that all such decisions ought to be published, not necessarily for the general purposes of jurisprudence, but as a check upon perfunctory work by the judges themselves. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA.--Our lega exchanges are commenting unfavorably upon the report of a decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri in Robinson V. Musser,1 which was an action for damages for a rape. In the reporter's statement the testimony is set out in all its nasty details, to the extent of several pages. A weak judge had allowed the case to go to a jury, and a weak or gushing jury had rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, in a brief opinion, reversed this judgment on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the injury was suffered involuntarily by the "We have read with great care," plaintiff. said Sherwood, J., in giving the opinion, "the evidence herein; and as a summary of our views of the plaintiff's own testimony, feel constrained to say, Volenti non fit injuria." The reporter is not to blame for setting out the evidence in this case; because, under the system in Missouri, the reporter of the Supreme Court never sets out the evidence Vol. 20-No. 1. THE ADAMS-COLERIDGE LIBEL SUIT.-The ruling which was made by Mr. Justice Manisty in this case, which has provoked so much injudicious comment on the part of the lay press, is one which is made every day in the courts of England and this country. This will appear from the following report of the case in the London Daily Telegraph: The jury retired at 3 o'clock and returned into court at 3:45. In reply to the usual question, they said they had agreed upon their verdict. Mr. Justice Manisty. Then I will ask you this. Do you find that the defendant wrote that letter honestly believing that he was discharging his duty to his sister, and for the purpose of discharging that duty, and without any improper motive? The Foreman. We believe, my lord, that by his not retracting when opportunity was given him, there must have been vindictiveness on his part. Therefore, we find for the plaintiff. Mr. Justice Manisty. You find for the plaintiff? The Foreman. We do. An opportunity of retracting was offered the defendant and he did not accept it. Mr. Justice Manisty. You say that upon that ground you find for the plaintiff? The Foreman. We judge by that, my lord, there must have been vindictiveness. Mr. Justice Manisty. You find malice? The Foreman. Yes, my lord, we find malice. Mr. Justice Manisty. In the event of that verdict standing, I must ask you to say what damages you think the plaintiff is entitled to recover. You must bear in mind the position of the case, and find such damages as you think right. The Foreman. We have not considered the question of damages, my lord. Mr. Justice Manisty. Be good enough to consider that now. The jury consulted together in the box without leaving the court. Thereafter, in reply to the The Plaintiff. I apply for judgment, my lord. The Attorney General (interposing). No; on the point of law I will ask your lordship whether there is any evidence to go to support that finding? Mr. Justice Manisty. In my opinion there is no evidence upon which snch a verdict can be founded. Therefore I give judgment for the defendant, with costs. This concluded the proceedings, the result of the case exciting great interest in the court and its precincts. The questions were, whether the letter of BernardColeridge to his sister was a privileged communication, and whether, although privileged, he was actuated in making it by express malice. The question whether it was privileged was, of course, a question of law; the other question was a question of fact for the jury, as was also the question of damages. Now, Mr. Justice Manisty, in order to save all questions, to the end that, if his ruling should be reversed by a higher court, there would not need to be a new trial, put the case to the jury on the question of express malice and to assess the damages. They found that there was malice, and assessed the damages at £3,000. He then, on motion of the defendant's counsel, set the verdict aside on the ground that there was no evidence to support it. This ruling saved all questions for review in the higher court, and the decision of the court of last resort, if against this ruling, will not result in awarding a new trial, but will end the case. An American court, under the same circumstances, entertaining the same views of the law and the evidence, would have instructed the jury peremptorily that the plaintiff could not recover. The plaintiff would then have taken a non-suit with leave to move to set it aside. Afterwards he would have made such motion. It would have been argued at length pro and con; and, if sustained, either by the court of nisi prius, or by an appellate Court, a new trial would have become necessary. The question whether there is any evidence to go to jury upon a given issue is always a question of law for the court, and the decision of the court on such a question is always a subject of review in a higher court, either on a bill of exceptions or on a case reserved, according to the practice in the particular jurisdiction. The difference between the English and the American practice is simply this; that the English practice more nearly gives effect to the maxim that it is to the interest of the republic that there should be an end to litigation. There, a case is tried once for all purposes, the verdict of the jury taken as to the amount of damages, subject to the decision of the court on questions of law, and thus the delay and expense of successive trials are avoided. MR. REAGAN'S INTER-STATE COMMERCE BILL.--At the time of this writing this celebrated bill is being read and discussed section by section in the national House of Representatives. One of the most noteworthy amendments was that introduced by Mr. Goff of West Virginia, to the effect that in the transportation of passengers, inter-State railroads shall make no discrimination on account of race or color. The effect of this amendment was neutralized by the adoption of another one offered by Mr. Barksdale, of Mississippi, providing that the furnishing of separate accommodations, with equal facilities, at the same charges, should not be considered a discrimination. Another amendment offered by Mr. White of Kentucky to the effect that any railroad company permitting the use of free passes or tickets at other than published rates, shall be required to furnish similar free passes or tickets to any person applying for the same, was defeated. If it were the fact that railroad companies only furnish free passes or tickets at reduced rates to persons in indigent or distressed circumstances, the defeat of the amendment would have been justifiable. But it is well known that the free pass business is monopolized for the most. part by persons in official or public positions. who can help or hurt the railway companies. It is equally well known that the evil has assumed such proportions as to become a general public nuisance, demoralizing to officials and injurious to railway shareholders. It stands to reason that, if the railway companies should receive pay for transporting all the clerical, editorial, political and judicial dead-beats whom they now transport for nothing, they would be able to transport the small remainder of honest people who pay their fare, at lower rates of charges than they are now compelled to exact. CAUSAL CONNECTION IN JOINT CRIMES. Several recent cases have called renewed attention to the distinctions which make the law of causal connection in confederate crimes one of the most complicated branches of criminal jurisprudence. The points which may be now considered as settled are as follows: (1) Mere sympathy with a crime does not impose responsibility. In treason this has been frequently recognized. No matter how strong may be A's sympathy with a traitorous movement, for instance, he is not indictable for treason, unless he was concerned in a traitorous confederacy of which such movement was the result.2 2. Presence is not by itself essential to causal responsibility. Absence at the consummation of a crime does not divest of responsibility a party from whose action such crime directly proceeds. This is unquestionably the case in those States in which the distinction between accessories before the fact and principals is obliterated, and in which accessories before the fact are subject to indictment and conviction as principals. And this is also the case, at common law, wherever there does not intervene between the organizing and consummation of a crime an intelligent and responsible agent who consummates the crime in the absence of the organizer. Thus, absence at the consummation 1 R. v. Taylor, L. R. 2 C. C. 147, 13 Cox C. C. 681; Com. v. Cooley, 6 Gray, 350; Plummer v. Com. 11 Bush 76; Clom. v. State, 33 Ind. 418; Connaughty v. State, 1 Wis. 169; Guilford v. State, 24 Ga. 315; Martin v. State, 25 Ga. 316; State v. Cox. 65 Mo. 29; People v. Leith, 52 Cal, 521. 2 Fries case, Whart St. Tr. 656; Bollman exparte 4 Cranch, 75; U. S. v. Greathouse, 2 Abb. U. S. 364; In re Gallagher, London Law Times, June 16, 1883, where this distinction is made with much clearness by Lord Coleridge C. T.; and it is applied to homicides in R. v. McNaughten, 14 Cox. C. C. 576; R. v. Archer, 1 F. & F. 51. 3 See New York Penal Code of 1882, § 30; Catheart v. Com. 37 Penn. St. 108; Campbell v. Com. 84 Penn. St. 871; Com. v. Hughes, 11 Phila. 430; Raiford v. Stabe, 59 Mich. 106; Jordon v. State, 56 Ga 92; State v. Zeibart, 40 Iowa, 169; Dempsey v. State 47 Ill. 323, Joe v. People, 49 Ill. 410. of a felony does not divest the responsibility of the party directing it, unless the executing agent was at the time insane or incapable, through injury, of intelligent volition. Nor when there is no break in the physical impulse, is responsibility in any way affected by the greatness of the distance over which the impulse is sent. A paper sent halfway round the globe may be as much a libel as a paper sold at the counter of the party publishing. Poison sent in the shape of medicine from New York to California may impose responsibility on the sender as effectually as poison which the concocter places directly in his victim's hands.5 A party who by mail directs an innocent and ignorant agent to forge the name of a stranger is as responsible for the forgery as if the forged name was written by himself." He who turns out a wild beast is responsible for its ravages, no matter how far these ravages may be from the cage from which it was turned out. He who sets a spring-gun on a frequented path cannot escape responsibility for injury thereby done by moving off miles from the place where the spring-gun was placed.s He who on the top of a distant hill signals to his confederates, plotting a stage robbery, when is the time to attack, is as much an abettor in the robbery as would be a confederate who watched outside of the door of a house in which a robbery is attempted." Even, therefore, as to felonies, the common law doctrine is that he who watches outside for the purpose of advising his associates inside, is a principal, no matter how far he be separated from the scene of action, if his position be such that his presence at it gives assurance to the perpetrators.10 As to mis 4 R. v. Giles, 1 Moody C. C. 166; R. v. Tyler, 8. C. & P. 616; R. v. Mears, 1 Bost L. R. 205; R. v. Michael, 2 Mood C. C. 9 C. & P., 356; Com. v. Hill, 11 Mass. 136, Blackburn v. State 23 Ohio St. 146. 5 R. v. Harley 4 C. & P. 369; R. v. Kelly, 2 C. & K. 379; R. v. Holloway, 2 Den. 287; People v. Bush, 4 Hill N. Y. 133; Green v. State, 13. Mo. 382. 6 R. v. Clifford, 2 C. & K. 201. 7 Fost. 349, 1 Hale, 514. 8 U. S. v. Gilliam, 11Wash. L. R. 129; State v. Moore, 31 Conn. 479; Bird v. Hollrook, 4 Bing. 628. 9 State v. Hamilton, 13 Nev. 386; see Scale v. State, 7 Tex. Ap. 361; McKeen v. State, 7 Tex. Ap. 631. Michell v. Com. 33 Grat. 845. 10 See R. v. Vanderstein, 10 Cox. C. C. 177; R. v. Gogerly, R. & R. C. C. 343; R. v. Owen, 1 Mood C. C. 96; Com. v. Luces, 2 Allen, 170; Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213; Mitchell v. Com., 33 Grat, 846; Breese v. State, 12 Ohio St. 146; State v. Hardin, 2 Dev. & Bat. 407; Tate v. State, 6 Blackf. 110; Doan v. State, 26 Ind. 495. |