You are instructed to find a general and if this is for the plaintiff you will assess and find the damages the plaintiff will in such case be entitled to recover. You will also, according to a fonn of verdict which the court will hand you, find specially upon each of the tracts of land where cntting if'! charged, though yon will not be required to find separately the amonnt cut and converted from each, but simply whether or not the
d,(,fendant has cut alld converted.
Yon will also find specially, as directed, whether the cutting upon N. t s. 'Eo t and N. W. N. W. 22 was in good faith, un(ier the belief that defendant had the right from being the owner to so cut. Gentlemen, the further responsibility of the case lies with you. I am glad to know that you have given the utmost.heed to the testimony; and to the discussion of it by counsel. It only remains for you to give the case such further consideration as its nature and iUlDortance to the parties demand, and render a verdict which shall (10 justice to the law and evidence. Verdict for the plaintiff, $2,000.
Bl1l v. U. B. 4 Dill. 464, accord. See Single v. Schneide1', 30 Wis. 570.
(Circuit Couri, B. D. New York.
November 2, 1881.)
ATTORNEY-COMPENSATION FOB SERVICES-LIEN.
l'1'ima facie an attorney has a lien for compensation on the papers in his hands where he has rendered some services.
2. SAME-SUIT FOB COMPENSATION-CONTBACT.
The question whether there was such a contract between an attorney and his client that the former. having given up his employment, has no claim to be compensated, must be determined in a suit brought by the attorney to recover the compensation, the lien .remaining in statu quo meanwhile. If suit be not brought within a llmited time and diligently prosecuted, the court will order the papers to be given up.
Except by consent such a question cannot be determined by the court ill summary way. In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 433, cited and followed.
O. G. Patterson, for the motion. R. M. Sherman, opposed.
flUeported by 8. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.
UNITED STATES V. BUCHANAN.
BLATCHFORD, C. J. The clients and the attorney appear to be at isRue, in good faith, on the matters which lie at the foundation of the contract for service. If the view of the clients is the true one, on the facts, nothing is due to the attorney. If his view of the facts is the correct one, something is due to him on a quantum memit. Prima facie he has a lien for compensation on the papers in his hands because he rendered some services, and if there was such a contract, that, having given up the employment,he has no claim to be compensated, that ought to be made out. Except by consent, the question in dispute cannot be determined by the in a summary way. 'It must be left to be determined in a suit to be brought by the attorney to recover the compensation; the lien, if any, remaining in statu quo meanwhile. If such suit be not brought within a time to be lim.ited, or be not then diligently prosecuted, this court would order the papers to be given up. The order of June 28,1881, ought to be vacated. The foregoing views are in accordance with the principles laid down In rePaschalj 10 Wall. 483. '
(Dist'nct Courl. W. D. North Carolina. November Term, 1881.\ 1.
Highly penal statutes are to be strictly construed. A stRtute is to be construed so as to carry out, with reason and discretion, the intent of the legislature, though such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute.
MASTER AND SERVANT-CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF TIlE MASTER.
Where a master, owing a duty to tae public, entrusts its performance to a servant, he is responsible criminally for the failure of his servant to discharge that duty, if its non-performance is a crime.
CRIMES-REV. ST. § 3324-EIl'lI'ACING STAMPS FROM EMPTY CASKS. An indictment, under section 3324 of the Revised Statutes, for
a failure to efface a stamp from an empty cask which had contained distilled spirits, cannot be sustained, though the proof shows that the cask had been emptied so far as it could be done by the faucet, if there is proof of the additional fact that it had been removed, with the stamp still on it, from the place where it had been used in the course of business with intent to pour the spirits still remaining in it out of the bung-hole as soon as the necessary assistance could be procured for that purpose, and the delay is within reasonable time.
This was an indictment, nnder section 3324 of the Revised Statutes, for a failure to efface a stamp from an empty cask which had contained distilled spirits. The defendant was a dUly-licensed retail dealer of' distilled spirits. v.9;no.12-44