The Decay of the R1fle Volunteers. — Sorry news comes to us about the Inns of Court Rifle Vol unteers. As their number has fallen below the re quired limit of 360, they are threatened with being disbanded . The "Law Journal" says: "The origin of the 'Devil's Own' is traced to the band of barris ters who organized themselves into an armed force at the time of the Spanish Armada. As now consti tuted, however, the corps was established thirty-five years ago, and for many years was an unqualified success. Among the distinguished men who joined its ranks were Lord Hannen, Lord Thesiger, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Davey, Lord Bowen, Lord Justice Cotton, Lord Justice Lindley, Lord Justice Lopes, Lord Justice Smith, Mr. Baron Pollock, Mr. Justice Chitty, Mr. Justice North, Mr. Justice Charles, Mr. Justice Grantham, Mr. Justice Kekewich, Sir James Stephen, Sir Edward Clarke, Sir Robert Reid, and Mr. Henry Matthews." This is the corps, probably, in which John Scott exposed his incorrigible inapti tude as a soldier, and the irregular front of which caused the remark, "as this indenture witnesseth." But has not the corps outlived its purpose? The Lit tle Corporal no longer stands on the opposite shore, scaring the island into fits; and it has always been believed that he was driven to abandon his scheme of invasion by fear of the charges of the lawyers. The Crimean War is done, and Tennyson no longer adjures them to " form." The Rifle Volunteers have had their day, There are no threatening troubles to surmount; Each separate hero now can go his way, And safely rifle on his own account.
Gerrymander. — In Mr. Moore's excellent history of " The American Congress" he adopted the preva lent belief that the famous Massachusetts "Gerry mander" was the invention of Governor Gerry. That undoubtedly was the contemporaneous accusa tion, and has since received popular credence, but it is now declared to be an error. For example, in the "Century Dictionary" it is said that the governor was personally hostile to the measure. Mr. Moore also interprets the Dred Scott decision in precisely the same way that Mr. Brooks does : "to the effect that the negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect." Both these labels will probably stick, and Governor Gerry and Chief Justice Taney will go down in history with these undeserved stig mas upon them. If one would get a good idea of the adhesive power of a press label, let him read Bunner's story, " The Man with the Red Pants," in "More Short Sixes."
353
NOTES OF CASES. Happen1ng of Loss or Injury. — The use of these or equivalent words in clauses of limitation in insurance policies has given rise to much divergence of opinion. In a recent case in Wyoming, McFarland v. Railway etc. Association, 27 L. R. A. 48, it is held that the words in an insurance policy, "one year from the date of the happening of the alleged in jury," mean precisely what they say, and not one year from the time when the money became payable under the policy, which was ninety days after proof of the injury. This would seem to be pretty clear; but some very influential courts have decided the other way in respect to provisions only a little less explicit. The Court say : — "The most of the cases bearing upon the question of ex tending the time limited for commencing suit, by holding the limitation to run from a later date than that specified in the policy, are cases of fire insurance, which limit the time to a certain number of months after the loss or after the fire, and further require proofs of loss to be furnished, or other conditions precedent to the right of action to be performed, for which time is allowed, or which necessarily consume time. So far as the question has been before the federal courts, the decisions are conflicting. Judges Thayer, Bunn, Hawley, and Gilbert have held, in favor of the position of plaintiff, that the limitation runs only from the time the cause of action accrues, although the policy reads a certain number of months after the loss or after the fire. Judges Deady and McKenna, and the Court of Ap peals of the I Kstrict of Columbia, hold directly the reverse. See Steel v. Phrenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn, 2 C. C. A. 463, 51 Fed. Rep. 715; Vette v. Clinton F. Ins. Co. 30 Fed. Rep. 668; Friezen v. Allemania F. Ins. Co. Id. 352; McElhone v. Massachusetts Ben. Asso. 22 Wash. L. Rep. 157. Coming to the states, we find five states and one territory holding, by their courts of last resort, that a limitation of a certain time for beginning action after the loss or after the fire shall not run from the date of the loss or of the fire, but from the time the cause of action accrues. We find a considerably larger number where the decisions are directly to the contrary effect, and a number where they are some what equivocal, and claimed by both parties; and some make a distinction between the meaning of the phrases ' after the loss ' and 1 after the fire.' So if we were to decide this case according to the number of the authorities, we should be compelled to decide it in favor of the de fendant. But this is not a satisfactory way of determining a question of the construction of the language either of a contract or of a statute." The cases thus holding are: Barber v. F. & M. Ins. Co. 16 W. Va. 658; 37 Am. Rep. 800; Matt. v. Iowa M. A. Ass'n, 81 Iowa, 135; German Ins. Co. v. Fairbank, 32 Neb. 750; Hong Sling v. Roy al Ins. Co. 8 Utah, 135; Hay v. Star F. Ins. Co. 77 N. Y. 235; 33 Am. Rep. 607; Sun Ins. Co. v. Jones, 54 Ark. 376. On the other hand are cited : Johnson v. Humboldt Ins. Co. 91 Ill. 92; 33 Am.
