RECENT CASES.
337
•eems to be correct only if, under the term ** pubHc dntiet," those duties are meant which are imposed alike upon all quasi-corporations of the same class, and those duties are excluded which follow from the management of property or the posses- sion of rights which a quasi-corporation has voluntarily assumed for its own advantage as a corporation, or which have been imposed upon it with its own consent) express or implied. With reference to such duties Uie same rules apply to public as to private corporations.
Criminal Law — Policy of the Law — Instructions. — It is not error for a court to refuse to instruct, that the policy of the law deems it better that many guilty persons should escape, rather than that one innocent person should be pun- ished. Burgess y. Territory ^ 19 Pac. Rep. 558 (Mont.).
Damages — Interest. — Interest cannot be added by the jury to discretionary damages awarded by them for a personal injury. Only special damages, com. putable upon direct or indirect evidence of actual values, can be thus increased. Western A A, R, Co,, v. Young, 7 S. E. Rep. 912 (Ga.).
Evidence — Privileged Communications — Waiver of Client's Privi- LIGE. — Where a defendant enters upon a line of defence involving something that has transpired between himself and an attorney, whose client he was, and testifies to the same, he thereby loses his right to object to the attorney's testi- mony as to the same matter. "The privilege is that of the client alone," and is thereby waived. Hunt v. Blackburn, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125.
Executors and Administrators — Set-off — Debt Barred by Statute OF Limitations. — In an action by a legal representative of deceased to recover his distributive share, an administrator cannot set off against the claim a debt of the plaintiff to deceased which is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Harrod v. Carder's AdnCr, 3 Circ. Ct. (Ohio) 479.
The following are in accord with the principal case: Drysdale^s Appeal, 14 Pa. St. 531 ; Reedy. Marshall, 90 Pa. St. 345; Milne's Appeal^ 99 Pa. St. 483.
But see contra: Courtenay v. Williams, 3 Hare, 539; Rose v. Gould, 15 Beav. 189; Coates V. Coates, 33 Beav. 249; Gee v. Liddell, 35 Beav. 629; Hill v. Walker, 4 K. & J. 166; In re CordweWs Estate, L. R. 20 Eq. 644; Garrett v. Pier son, 29 Iowa, 304 {semdle); Cummings v. Bramkall, 120 Mass. 552 (semble)\ In the matter of Bogart, 28 Hun, 466.
Executors and Administrators — When Chargeable with Interest. — An administrator who holds in his possession funds belonging to the estate, but does not use them for his own advantage and devives no benefit thereform, is not chargeable with interest. Smith v. Smith, 8 S. E. Rep. 128 (N. C).
The rule is laid down in 2 Wms. Exec. (7th ed ) 1844, that an executor may be charged with interest when he has been ** guilty of negligence in omitting to lay out the money for the benefit of the estate,"
Extradition — Prosecution of Person Extradited for another Crime. — A person extradited from one State to another, cannot be prosecuted in the latter State for an offence other than that for which he was extradited, unless, he has had a reasonable time and opportunity to return. State v. Hail, 19 Pac. Rep. 918 (Kan.).
The court say that this rule of law, when applied to civil cases in this country, •<is sustained by nearly the entire, if not the universal, current of authority. When applied to criminal cases, where the extradition is from a foreign countiy, it is sustained by almost all authority. When applied, however, to criminal cases where the extradition is from a sister State, a majority of the cases is against the rule, and, as we think, without any good reason."
Grand Jury — Qualifications — Former Opinions. — A grand juror tes- tified that he formed an opinion that defendant was guilty, from testimony heard while sitting as grand juror on another case. Held, that the opinion so formed did not disqualifiy him as grand juror in this case. *<The opinion which dis- qualifies is one formed from something heard outside, which has none of the sanction of an oath, and is merely hearsay." People v. Northey^ 19 Pac. Rep. 865 (CaL).
Husband and Wife — Separate Estate — Terms of Trust Deed. — A statute forbidding a wife to bind her separate estate by any assumption of her husband's debts, does not prevent the wife from mortgaging, with her husband's consent, and for his debts, property which he had conveyed to a trustee for her
