amount required for compensation, — since it would not seem possible in this case to divide the consequential loss. The plaintiff, having the legal right to recover the value of the contract, gets it, though it may do more than make him individually whole; as where a party sues on a contract made wholly or partly for the benefit of a third person. There seems to be no case just like the one under discussion. A somewhat analogous case is that where damages for a tort are not reduced by the previous payment to the plaintiff on a policy of insurance. Perrot v. Shearer, 17 Mich. 48; 1 Sedg. Dam., 8th ed., § 67. See also Elmer v. Fessenden, 154 Mass. 427.
So the question stands at strict law. Whether equity might modify the rights of the parties, and how far such modification might be made available as an equitable defence by either B or C in the action at law, are matters upon which the actual decisions throw no light. See Gooding v. Shea, 103 Mass. 360; Jackson v. Turrell, 39 N. J. L. 329.
"PUBLIC DEFENDERS." — Mrs. Clara Foltz of the New York Bar is firmly convinced that there is at least one serious defect in our judicial system. While the criminal court is admirably equipped with machinery for the prosecution of offences, it is lamentably deficient, she believes, in the machinery for defence. The unfortunate prisoner who is unable to pay for counsel must expect to be prosecuted by the ablest of attorneys, backed up by all the resources of the State, and only too frequently to be defended, if at all, by a court appointee who is wholly inferior to the men with whom he must cope. The remedy for this, Mrs. Foltz finds in the creation of a new officer, to be called the Public Defender. She has formulated her ideas in a bill which is to be laid before the legislature of New York. It provides for the election to the office of an attorney at law in each county, whose duty it shall be " to attend all criminal courts, and to appear for and defend all persons charged with violation of the law who are without counsel and who desire an attorney to appear for them."
While an impecunious prisoner whose case is tried in one of the smaller towns, where it will become matter of common talk among lawyers, is not likely to suffer for want of competent counsel to defend him, it is apt to be different amid the hurry and bustle of litigation in the large cities, where such things pass by unnoticed. Even there it may perhaps be doubted if substantial injustice is often done a prisoner under the present system. If he is not adequately represented by counsel, the average judge is likely to guard his interests well enough, if not to err on the side of leniency. It is anl unpleasant position for the judge, however, and of course in- volves a departure from the strictly judicial function. Mrs. Foltz's idea certainly merits consideration.
THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNIOCENCE. — In Coffin v. United States, 156 U. S. 432, it will be remembered that the Supreme Court held it was error for the judge, in a criminal case, to refuse to charge as to the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding that the jury were explicitly told that they must be satisfied of the prisoner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a purely theoretical question, the decision seems wrong. It may perhaps be supported, however, as was pointed out in 9 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 144, on the practical ground
