on the Naval History and " Home as Found," on account of Cooper's apologies for the conduct of Cap tain Elliott, who flunked in the Battle of Lake Erie. The article in question was a trenchant piece of writ ing. It accused the historian of a disregard of jus tice and propriety, represented him as infatuated with vanity, mad with passion, and the sympathetic apol ogist of another stigmatized with ingratitude and per fidy, and charged him with publishing as true, state ments and evidence falsified and encomiums retract ed; " deliberately penning an untrue account of the battle," as the court say. The declaration was held good on demurrer, the matter in question not being privileged. On this argument the family appeared as counsel — R. Cooper, and the plaintiff in pro. per. Of counsel for the defendant was Marshall J . Bidwell, a celebrated New York City lawyer, a Canadian ref ugee. Mr. Stone in this article charged that Cooper was "his own worst enemy," "remained in the cock-pit rather than to go aloft," and had "well nigh made shipwreck of his reputation as a writer." The court said, " This is the first attempt to try the question of privilege by a demurrer to the declara tion." We infer that Cooper recovered three hundred dol lars in this action, for in the court of errors, in Stone 7'. Cooper, 2 Denio, 293, is reported an appeal from an award of arbitrators for that amount, in regard to which Stone had published in the " New York Spec tator " the following : — "Mr. J. Fenimore Cooper need not be so fidgety in his anxiety to finger the cash to be paid by us to ward his support. It will be forthcoming on the last day allowed by the award, but we are not disposed to allow him to put it into Wall Street for shaving purposes before that period. Wait patiently. There will be no locksmith necessary to get at the ready." For this Cooper sued, alleging that the reference to the locksmith intended a disgraceful charge of break ing a lock to get at money on execution against An drew M. Barber, the defendant in the first suit above mentioned. This clause was thrown out by the court, but Cooper had a verdict of $250, which Cowen upheld. This was reversed by the court of errors, fifteen to five, the chancellor writing with the majority, and the court holding that "shaving," in the sense of buying existing securities at a larger rate of discount than the lawful interest, "is a legitmate and legal business," practiced by " respectable brok ers in Wall Street," and therefore nothing illegal, immoral, or disgraceful was charged. Four senators delivered concurring opinions. But Barlow, senator, wrote on the other side, declaring that " One who has justly acquired the reputation of a shaver is uni versally regarded with dislike and suspicion by all well balanced minds and in all well regulated com
585
munities." In this case Walworth gives a learned history of usury. On this argument the great Joshua A. Spencer appeared for Stone. What became of the action alter this we cannot trace in the reports. These Cooper cases have been regarded as leading cases in New York, and have been much cited; as for example in More v. James Gordon Bennett, 48 N. Y., 472. It is recorded that Cooper had Stone indicted in Otsego County for libel, and that the de fendant was acquitted. On this trial, parts of the book in question, " Home as Found," were read to the jury, and it was thought that this settled the is sue against Cooper. As has been show-n, Cooper was a gritty litigant, and on the whole it is apparent that he had good cause for going to law. We do not know that he had received a legal education, although he acted as his own counsel on some of his trials, but as he was a fogy of the strictest order, he not only opposed the march of modern improvement toward his own vil lage — fighting off the railroads all his life — but he was a zealous hater of law reform, and in one of his last trashy novels, " The Ways of the Hour," he roundly abused the New York code of procedure, trial by jury and the popular election of judges. He deemed trial by jury unfit for a democracy. The plot of this novel, which involved a murder trial, is gro tesque, and shows a laughable ignorance of legal prin ciples and procedure and a considerable want of com mon sense. Although Cooper idealized the Ameri can Indian, he did not like the " Anti-Rent Indians," being an aristocratic landlord, and he denounces them heartily in one of his tales. Cooper was not so good a lawyer as Gerrit Smith, another great New York landholder, and a famous abolitionist, who de fended the "Jerry Rescuers," and in that case de livered, as Judge Marvin informed the writer, one of the most superb legal arguments to which he ever listened. NOTES OF CASES. Larceny — Bringing Goods into State. — "The glorious uncertainty of the common law" is well illustrated by the decisions upon the question whether a person may be indicted for larceny com mitted by bringing into the State goods which he has stolen in another State. The common law doctrine was that one could not be indicted in one country for larceny committed by bringing into that country goods which he had stolen in another, and this has been held in Virginia to apply as between the States of the Union. Strouther v. Com., 22 Southeast. Rep. 252, stress is laid on the fact that a sufficient remedy is provided by extradition. Some of the States have provided for the case by statute. Disa
