Harvard Law Review
Published monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE. $2.S0 PER ANMUM 3S CENTS PER NUMBER.
Editorial Board.
George R. Nuttee, . . . Editor-in-Chief.
Everett V. Abbot, Wilson G. Crosby,
George P. Furber, Troamrer^ Otto R. Hansen,
Charles M. Ludden, Alfred E. McCordic,
Edward T. Sanford, Edward I. Smith,
Samuel H. Smith, Joseph Walker.
With the present number the Harvard Law Review begins its second volume. During the coming year we purpose to continue the same general policy. The leading articles will be contributed by the professors in the School and the others already indicated in the list of con- tributors. We hope, besides, to make a special feature of short articles, written by younger members of the profession and by students in the School, which shall deal, if possible, with subjects of current interest. The summary of work in the Law School will be the same as before. We wish to say a word about the " Recent Cases." The field is too wide for us to attempt a complete digest, however brief, of the multi- tude of cases decided every month. It is our aim to present only the cases, comparatively few in number, which show the progress and general tendencies of die law. All such cases will be given, and com- ments and references added, wherever practicable, in the hope that by making this department suggestive rather than exhaustive, we may render it of more value.
In conclusion, we realize that the Review is yet only an experiment, but, prompted by the kind encouragement we have already received, we shall do our best to keep the standard as high as possible. We trust that in a few years, with the continuance of this encourage- ment, it will have an established place, and contribute its share in spreading the influence and work of the Harvard Law School.
The recent Ohio Common Pleas case of State v. Tates * is not authority for the proposition that a dog may be the subject of larceny at common law, as it has been currently reported. The defendants were indicted for burglary, in breaking and entering a stable with intent to steal two dogs, and stealing two dogs of the value of $40. The defend- ants demurred to the indictment. The court overruled the demurrer on the ground that as the Ohio Larceny Act declares '^ anything of value may be stolen," a dog, being a " thing of value," may, under the
^ Kcpovted in The Albany Law Journal, vol. 37, p. asS'
