ral, too prolix. Expunge from prepossessed us in his favour, and them every thing not material in led us to anticipate something the statement of facts; every thing good, appears to have been fully from the arguments, which does aware of the difficulties, with which not bear on the question ; and ev. he had to contend, and of the adery thing given for the reasons of vantages and disadvantages of the the decision which is wholly for different methods in use of report. eign and irrelevant, and many a ing cases. It seems to have been huge folio would dwindle into a du, his endeavour to avoid the extremes odecimo. The eight or ten volumes of prolixity and brevity. Where of Vesey jun. would be reduced to he deemed the points new and ab, two or three ; Dallas would be re, struse, he professes to be copious. duced one half ; Wallace* to a In cases of less importance, and few pages; Cranch would make especially in matters of practice, No. 1, of Vol. I., and Root would he aims at conciseness. Not hayentirely disappear. But our read, ing the materials for reports, with ers must not conclude from what which his office furnished him, we have said, that reports may not, submitted to our inspection, we are in our judgment, be tog concise. unable to determine whether he We are not believers in the “ short has omitted any case which ought cuts to knowledge.” In reports it to have been given to the publick. is indispensable, that all the mate. But we have no hesitation in sayı rial facts be correctly stated, the ing, that some of those selected pleadings, when the case turns up- might have been spared, without on them, the judgment of the any injury to the work. For excourt, and the outlines of the ample, what must foreigners think grounds or reasons of the decision. of the state of our jurisprudence, Nothing trifling or impertinent when it is thought necessary twice should be inserted, and nothing to state, as solemn decisions of our material omitted.

supreme court, that an administraOf the qualifications of a report, tor, and an individual in his own er, there can be but one opinion. right, cannot join in prosecuting He must possess industry to col- an action ? [p. 104, 480.] That lect suitable materials, judgment an action for money had and receivto select and arrange them, and ed does not lie for a surety,who has great accuracy in every thing. In paid the debt of his principal ? [p, ,

1 a word, that is the best book of re- 139.] Who ever supposed it did ? ports, which contains the greatest A reporter should always bear in pumber of cases upon important mind

that it is only cases of weight points, in which the reasons and and difficulty” that should be regrounds of the decisions are so ported. clearly set down that they cannot

Some of the cases are spun out easily be mistaken ; and he is the to a most unreasonable length, and best reporter, whose works ap contain matters which, for the hona proach the nearest to this standard, our of the state, we think, should

Mr. Williams, in a very modest never have appeared in print. If and well written preface, which individuals will use or rather abuse

the liberty of the press, in publishReports of Cases adjudged in the ing what disgraces them and us in circuit court of the United States, for the judgment of our neighbours the third circuit,

and of foreigners, it cannot be help

a

5

field always did, and shall have delivered to the defendant, spent as many years in the acqui- deputy sheriff in W. county, sition of polite and elegant litera. who, by virtue thereof, took ture as he did, we shall not object the cows mentioned in the declarato their being as eloquent upon the tion, and sold thein to satisfy the bench as his lordship. It will no execution. For the defendant was doubt subject us to the “ suspicion cited Crawford v. Satchwell, % of dulness,” yet we shall not scru- Stra. 1218. The court was clearple to declare, that in a judge we ly of opinion, that the defendant prefer labour to genius, and pains. was not a trespasser. He was justaking to ingenuity.

tified by his precept in doing what Among other instances of pro- he did. Smith should have aplixity that occur in these reports, peared and pleaded the wrong admay be mentioned,the case of Smith dition of place in abatement. By v. Bowker, (p. 76] which occu- not doing so he waved the nispies nearly six pages. By the take, and he now comes too late to way, the defendant is called Joseph avail himself of it. Judgment for and Jotham; which is the true name? the defendant."

We think something like the Simmons &c.v.W.C.Apthorp &c. following would have comprized (p.99) petition for a review, or new every thing material in the case. trial. The case is not long, but it If we are correct in this, it shews might have been shorter. It would how much might have been gained have been sufficient to state, as in by a judicious abridgment of many the margin, that it was determined of the cases in this volume.. by the court, that on such petitions

“ This was trespass for taking the petitioner shall be confined, on the plaintiff's cows. A case was the hearing, to the allegations in stated for the opinion of the the petition. court, in substance, that the pres- The case of Hall v. Hall [p.101} ent plaintiff had before made a is too trifling to merit insertion. promissory note to one Sweetser, The decision is also, to say the who purchased a writ of attach- least of it, questionable. It was ment thereon against the plain- probably made without any considtiff, calling him of Orange, in the eration. We think the oath of a county of H., instead of Athol, in witness to prove payment as“ high" the county of W., his true place of and better evidence, than the bare abode. Service was made by J.S, receipt of a collector of taxes. deputy sheriff of H. county, that Clap v. Joslyn in review [p. 129]. he had attached a hat, the property The circumstances of this case of A. S. named in the writ, and were very particular, and such, it left him a summons for his ap- is to be hoped, as will never happearance. This summons was left pen again. It was unnecessary to at the dwelling house of the plain- state them. All that seems usetiff in Athol, in which town he has ful to mention is, that in this case always lived. There was no ap- the court settled it as a rule of pearance, and judgment was ren- practice, that in an action of redered, by default, at the first term, view, granted by the court under and execution issued and directed the statute, the court may, on a rule to the sheriffs, &c. of W. and H. to shew cause, quash the writ for counties, describing the parties a9 want of notice to the adverse party, in the writ of attachment, and was of the application for a review; op,

the court may then hear the par- cases where the statements are ins ties on the merits of the petition complete. But we shall leave it for a new trial.

to the sagacity of our learned reaWalker &c. v. Maxwell, [p. ders to discover and point them 104.] In this case two new ques. out. On this subject we shall tions were decided. Ist, that the barely mention some slight inacallegation, by a defendant who bec curacies in the case of Harris v. longs to another state in the union, Clap, &c. (p. 308). that the debt for which he is now It would appear from many parts sued has been attached in his hands of the report that the judgment as garnishee by process of foreign was at law and not in equity. And attachment in his own state, at the yet the chief justice speaks (p. suit of a creditor thcre,...that all the 319, 320) of the surety coming frroceedings in the foreign attach- into the court as a court of equity ment were pursuant to the statute for relief. in such state, is not sufficient. The The four judges, who were of statute should have been set forth, opinion for the plaintiff, agree that that the court might see whether the interest on the award shall the proceedings were authorized commence at the expiration of by it or not. 2d, that amendment 120 days from the acceptance of may be allowed, after argument on it in the common pleas, which demurrer. We have called these was Ist Tuesday January 1798 ; nero points ; the second was not a and yet the interest appears to new question, being the same that have been cast from the 13th June was decided in Holbrook v. Pratt, 1798, the time of commencing the [p. 96] but the decision was new, suit on the bond. The judges do being directly contrary to the for- not seem to be agreed as to the

time, from which interest might be This case occupies twelve pages, computed on the penalty. Thachlittle less than a fortieth part er J. fixes on one hundred ard of the volume, and costs every twenty days after the judgment on reader 10 cents,...a great deal more the award, as the period. Sewall than it is worth. It was not ne- J. (we think with more propriety) cessary, to state the pleadings ; fixes on the demand, that is, the that part printed in italics and the commencement of the suit in the substance of the rest would have case before the court. It would been sufficient. There is nothing in seem that the judgment was at law. these records of pleadings so excel. The debt adjudged to the plaintiff lent as to merit insertion at length. was $5000 the penalty of the bond,

It is but justice to Mr. W. to and 81480,55 cents, as damages say, that his statements of facts for the detention of the debt ; and seem much more correct than yet the true measure of damages those drawn up by the counsel, seems to have been declared to be which are often stuffed with im. the penalty and interest on it from pertinent matter; and in some in- the commencement of the suit. stances so erroneous, as to require What but equity prevented the correction by the reporter. plaintiff from recovering full inter

Other examples might be giv. est, viz. 82025? The defendant en of statements and reports un- did not ask equity. We have not necessarily prolix. There are also looked into this point. Perhaps

mer one.

courts of law assume the right of work we observed a small impro* limiting interest to the equity of priety, which the reporter seems the case. The doctrine may be,' himself to have corrected at an that the penalty is forfelted, and early stage. We mean the desa that the court, in their discretion, cribing of the action immediately give such damages, and no more, after the names of the parties : for the detention of the debt, as the thus, “ Debt. This was an action plaintiff shall have sustained. The of debt.” “Assumpsit. This was one shilling usually given in Eng- an action of assumpsit," &c. But

" land seems to imply, that some there is another redundancy, which damages must be given, and that runs through the whole work. We less than the whole interest may allude to his always naming the be given. It has not been usual judges who concurred in the opina here to give any damages for the ion stated. We think the publick detention of the penalty of a bond, ought to know, what judges decidand the framers of the statute of ed; but we are of opinion, that this 1 March, 1799 (III. p. 29) do not knowledge would be better comseem to have conceived, that inter-municated by stating, in general est might be given on the penalty terms, that the unanimity of the or damages for the detention of it. court is to be understood in every

We were singularly struck with case, where a difference of opinthe case of Porter v. Bussey. [p. ion is not expressly stated ; and 436.) No reason is given for the where all the judges did not ata decision, but we are favoured with tend, at any term, or in any partica very good argument of one of ular cause, a short note at the bethe learned judges against it. We ginning or end of such term or cannot say what our opinion might cause, as the case may be, would have been, if we had been favoured have saved a great number of very with the reasons of the court. At unnecessary repetitions. present we incline to the opinion Where a judge adds nothing to of the judge, who dissented. the grounds or reasons of the des

Doubtless other cases besides cision, it seems quite unnecessary those mentioned will occur on a to state that such

justice careful perusal of this volume, in thought the plaintiff was entitled which the critical and learned rea- to judgment, and not the defenda der may be inclined to think, that ant. It would be sufficient simply the facts have not been clearly and to say, that such justice or justices concisely stated, and the grounds concurred. of the decision perspicuously re- It has appeared to us, that Mr. ported. But they are not very nu- W. is not particular enough in his merous, nor are the defects per method of citing statutes. In haps very important. We think some instances we are left to conthe greatest errour is on the side jecture what statute was intended. of prolixity. The author has too The date of our statutes is genere often, we believe, “yielded to infe- ally given, but the titles being riour sense, and doubted his own;" sometimes omitted, and several a fault not very common at the having been enacted on the same present day, and which the res day,considerable time is sometimes porter will probably mend, if he requireu to find the one referred to. continue to follow the trade of an We readers expect that authors author. At the beginning of the will spare no pains to promote our

Vol. III. No. 3. T