RECENT CASES. 357 This doctrine is well settled in New York. Fairbanks v. Sargent, 104 N. Y. 108, and is in accord with the weight of American authority. Putnam v. Story, 132 Mass. . 205; Kennedy v. Parke, 17 N. J. Eq. 415; Meier v. Hess, 32 Pac. Rep. 755 (Ore.). The English doctrine is that the first assignee giving notice is protected, following the rule in Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. i. The Federal courts and a few of the State courts have adopted this rule. Methven v. Staten Island Light Co., 66 Fed. Rep. 113; Van Buskirk V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 140; Murdock v. Finney, 21 Mo. 139. Conflict of Laws — Foreign Contracts — Public Policy. — Goods were shipped on an English vessel from Germany to Philadelphia ; the contract, made in Germany, exempted the ship owner from liability for the negligence of master or crew, and provided that disputes should be settled according to the law of the ship's flag. The plaintiff's goods were damaged at Philadelphia through the negligence of the crew. Held, although such contracts are valid in Germany and in England, they are considered against public policy here, and will not be enforced. The Glenmavis, 69 Fed. Rep. 472. If this contract had been made in America, most of our courts would have held it unenforceable. 2 Parsons on Contracts, 8th ed., 259. Nor will the courts of one nation respect the laws of another when such a course is against public policy. West- lake, Private Internat. Law, § 215. It may be doubted, however, whether a contract like this, made abroad, offends against American interests ; public policy may demand that we preserve a high standard of care in our community by forbidding our people to sell their vigilance, but if such an act is done in a German community it is a ques- tion of German, not of American policy, and there would seem to be no reason for refusing to give effect to the foreign law. Forepaugh v. Delaware, &'c-. R. R. Co , 128 Pa. St. 217. The doctrine of the principal case appears, however, to have been adopted by the Federal courts. Lewisohn v. National Steamship Co., 56 Fed. Rep. 602. See Hutchinson on Carriers, §§ 140-144 a. Constitutional Law — Criminal Procedure — Waiver of Twelve Jurors. — The defendant by his consent was tried for a felony by a jury of eleven men, and upon conviction he moved for a reversal of judgment. Held, that in a case of felony the defendant could not waive his constitutional right to a trial by a full jury of twelve men. Territory v. Ortiz, 42 Pac. Rep. 87 (N. Mex.). See Notes. Constitutional Law — Self-incriminating Testimony — Statutory Pro- tection AGAINST Prosecution. — Held, (i) that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect a witness from giving testimony which merely tends to reflect upon his character ; (2) that an act of Congress, providing that no per- son shall be excused from testifying in proceedings under the Interstate Commerce Act on the ground that it may tend to criminate him, but that no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty on account of anything concerning which he may testify, is constitutional, since it affords a protection as broad as the constitutional provision. Brown v. Walker, 70 Fed. Rep. 46. The first point is well settled. U. S. v. Smith, 4 Day's R. 121 ; i Greenleaf on Evi- dence, § 454, and cases cited. The second point overrules the decision in U. S. v. James, 60 Fed. Rep. 257, thus bringing the Federal rule into line with the majority of State decisions upon the same point. People v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74; People . Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427 ; Wilkins v. Malone, 14 Ind. 153; State v. Quarles, 13 Ark. 307; Higdon V. Heard, 14 Ga. 255. See, contra, Cullen v. Com,, 24 Grat. 624; Counselman v. Hitch- cock, 142 U. S. 597. Compare Emery's Case, 107 Mass. 172. Constitutional Law —Trial by Jury. —The Constitution of Kansas provides that " the right of trial by jury shall be inviolate." The petitioner was summarily convicted under a city ordinance, forbidding that which the State laws made a penal offence generally, and applies for his discharge on habeas corpus under the above pro- vision. Held, that since an appeal lay from the city court to a court in which a trial by jury was secured, the summary proceeding was not in conflict with the Constitution, if the appeal was "clogged by no unreasonable restrictions "; that since in this case the appeal was conditioned " for the payment of such fine and costs as shall be imposed on him, if the case shall be determined against the appellant," it was unreasonably restricted. Re Jahn, 41 Pac. Rep. 956 (Kan). In regard to the first point, there is a conflict of authority. A previous Kansas case, Emporia v. Volmer, 12 Kan. 622, and cases in several other States, support this decision. The authorities are collected in i Dill. Mun. Corp (4th ed.) § 439, and in Cooley, Const. Limit. (5th ed.) 506, 507. See especially Beers v. Beers, 4 Conn. 535, and Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray, 329. In Callan v. IVilson, 127 U. S. 540, the opposite
