N. H. 142; Westlake v. Westlake, 34 Ohio St. 621, 32 Am. Rep. 397; Hay nes v. Nowlin, 129 Ind. 581, 14 L. R. A. 787; Warren v. Warren, 89 Mich. 123, 14 L. R. A. 545; Bassett v. Bassett, 20 11i. App. 543; Price v. Price, 81 Iowa, 693, 29 L. R. A 150; Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101, 26 L. R. A. 412; Mehrhoff v. Mehrhoff, 26 Fed. Rep. 14. The New York and Indiana cases cited overrule the earlier cases in those States in which a different conclusion has been reached. The only decisions in which we find the right denied are Duffies v. Duffies, 76 Wis. 374, 8 L. R. A. 420; and Doe v. Roe, 82 Me. 503, 8 L. R. A. 833." To the majority may be added Williams v . Wil liams, 20 Colo., 51, and Hodgkinson v. Hodgkinson, 43 Neb. 269: 27 L. R. A. 120; 46 Am. St. Rep. 468; and to the minority: Kroessin v. Kroessin, 60 Minn. 372; 27 L. R. A. 685. Spendthrift Trusts. — One of the most nota ble recognitions of the rights of women in modern times is the extension to them of the doctrine of spendthrift trusts. This was held in Ashurst's Ap peal, 77 Pa. St. 464, where Sharswood, J., observed : "It is true that girls are not so often spendthrifts as boys, but they may sometimes be, and if extrava gance in female dress continues as it has begun, the fortunes of girls may be as rapidly dissipated in that way as by intemperance, gambling, and licentious ness in young men." This is really dreadful! Sheluxury in dress put on a par with masculine intemper ance, gambling, and licentiousness! It reminds one of the old comedian Clark, who in one of his hayseed characters, describing the downfall of a young man who went from farm to city, said, " He took to desprit games — dominoes." But we are glad there is some way of cutting off the girls' cigarettes, ice cream, and soda-water. Dog-Day Law. — The "Lawyers' Reports Anno tated," in the height of the late dog-days, reported a group of dog cases, amply annotated. See 40 L. R. A. 503-527. The cases are Graham v . Smith, Georgia Supreme Court, holding that the owner of a dog may maintain trover for conversion of a dog; Hamby v. Sampson, Iowa Supreme Court, holding dogs to be subject of larceny; and Citizens' Rapid Transit Co. v . Dew, Tennessee Supreme Court (to which we have already called attention), holding that a street-car railroad company is liable in damages for carelessly running over and killing a clog. All this tenderness for dogs at the very season when they are supposed to be running around seeking whom they may devour and infect with their own madness! In the twenty-two part pages of notes in fine type, we dare say, from what we know of the character of the L. R. A. annotation, may be found references to every important dog case, here or elsewhere, on the points involved. By the way, we wish the L. R. A.
would not string their notes along under a few lines of the case-text, but place them in full at the end of each case, and also print them in larger type. The L. R. A. and the "American State Reports" people must think the old lawyers are all dead, and that there are never going to be any more; at least we infer so from their ill-considered devices to cram close and save space. Angling. — It will be gratifying to lawyers to be assured that if they go a-fishing on a dark night, on water that is infested with sunken trees and snags unknown to them, and get drowned, their bereaved families may still have the benefit of accident insur ance, although the policies are to be void in case of "voluntary exposure to unnecessary dangers." Col lins v. Bankers' Ace. Ins. Co. 96 Iowa, 216; 59 Am. St. Rep. 367. The angler is not bound to drag the stream beforehand for dangerous obstacles of this kind, nor to take a skilled pilot. This doctrine will prove soothing to Mr. Cleveland and other dis tinguished legal gentlemen who are addicted to the noble and athletic sport of angling. It seems to us that there has been a recent decision to the same effect about a huntsman going up a steep bank trail ing his gun. As Mr. Emerson said to a guest who declined pie at breakfast, " Why, what is pie for?" so we inquire, " What is an accident insurance for, if not for just such occurrences?" "Looks" as Evidence. — In Thornton?/. State, 113 Ala. 43; 59 Am. St. Rep 97, a murder case, a witness, the sheriff, was allowed to testify that he met the accused the day after the murder, and that he " looked frightened " when he saw him. It seems to us that this is going too far, especially as the ac cused was a negro and would naturally look that way no matter how innocent. Looks as indicating health or sickness or anger or madness or drunkenness, and the like, may be the proper subject of testimony, but as indicating guilt or innocence may be quite misleading, and are certainly very unreliable. Earlier decisions of the same court, now disapproved, that evidence should not be allowed that a person looked "downcast," or " excited," or " serious," commend themselves much more strongly to our judgment. A sheriff, full of the sense of his own importance, and perchance suspicious of a negro whom he meets, might very well imagine, perhaps arouse, terror in the sable countenance. The exhibition of emotion or an utter stolidity of countenance would be alike inconclusive. That decision, in Greenfield v. People, 85 N. Y. 75, that it was proper to show that a pris oner accused of having murdered his wife, shed no tears on account of her death, has always seemed to us extremely unjust.
