of the jurisdiction and power of the courts and officers of the city two miles beyond the city limits. If an ordinance be enacted, and afterwards the city limits be extended by adding thereto adjacent territory, no one would contend that a new ordinance must be passed in order to be operative in the newly-acquired territory. We can see no difference between that case and this. By this law the extension of the power and jurisdiction is absolute. It does not depend on any act or ordinance of the city specially adopting or invoking the power. If the ordinance had been passed after the law went into force, it would not have been necessary that it should specify that its operation extended two miles beyond the city limits. It is so extended by the express provision of the law. Coun 2. It is urged that the law in question is less unconstitutional. We have held it to be a constitutional and valid enactment. State v. Shroeder, 51 Iowa, 197; Town of Centerville v. Miller, Id. 712; we have no disposition to. recede from the ruling in those cases. sel present no new objection to the act which we regard as of sufficient importance to discuss. 3. The ordinance provided as a penalty for its violation a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $100. The court assessed a fine of $50, which is claimed to be excessive. As we hold the prosecution was properly commenced and carried on under the ordinance, the fine could not have been in a less amount than that fixed by the court. Affirmed. Wisconsin Supreme Court. CORRECTION OF JUDGMENT. WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS. September 9, 1882. This court has no power, at a subsequent term, to correct its judgment in respect to costs, where that subject was considered, and the judgment entered by the clerk in accordance with the directions of the court, unless such power was carried forward by a motion made during the term at which the judgment was rendered. Pringle v. Dunn, 39 Wis. 435. Motion for correction of judgment. This is a motion to correct the judgment of this court, rendered in this cause at the last January term, so as to make the costs of the respondents on appeal payable by the appellant personally, instead of being payable out of the estate of the deceased, as provided by the judgment. At the time of deciding the case, the subject of costs was considered by the court, and the judgment entered was strictly in accordance with the directions given, notwithstanding the opinion filed is silent upon that subject. S. C. 12 N. W. Rep. 465; 4 Wis. Leg. News, 332. This being so, and the power of the court to correct the decree at that term not having been carried forward to this term by motion, we are now without any power in the premises, and we must therefore deny the motion, upon the authority of the repeated decisions of this court. Pringle r. Dunn, 39 Wis. 435, and cases there cited. The error, if any, is not one of the clerk, but of the court, and hence does not come within the exception in the Cole Case, 52 Wis. 591; The motion is therefore denied. SUPREME COURT RECORD. [New cases filed since our last report, up to Nov. 7, '82.] 1339. Noah Horst et al v. Patrick Burke et al. Error to the District Court of Stark County. F. L. Baldwin and J. J. Parker for plaintiffs. 1340. The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. The Central Ohio Railroad reorganized as the B. & O. R. Co. Appeal. Reserved in the District Court of Franklin County. C. N. Olds for plaintiff; J. H. Collins for defendant. 1341. Hamilton Green v. The Township Trustees of Paint Township, Fayette County. Error to the District Court of Fayette County. Maynard & Hadley for plaintiff. 1342. Rosa Gorman v. Thomas E. Taylor, guardian. Error to the District Court of Franklin County. J. T. Holmes and W. B. Page for plaintiff; Jones & Jones for defendant. 1343. Maria J. Viele v. Wallace C. Davis. Error. Reserved in the District Court of Summit County. J. S. Carpenter for plaintiff. 1344. John M. Bankhardt v. Moses G. Watterson, Treasurer et al. Error. Reserved in the District Court of Cuyahoga County. Arnold Green for plaintiff; Kain, Sherwood & Bunts for defendants. 1345. The City of Cleveland et al v. John W. Heisley et al. Error to the District Court of Cuyahoga County. Kain, Sherwood & Bunts for plaintiff; Heisley, Baldwin & Estep for defendants. 1346. In the matter of the Final Settlement of Isaac Hogue, deceased, as executor of the will of Nelson Hogue, deceased. Error to the District Court of Monroe County. Hunter & Mallory, and Parsons & Doherty for Issac Hogue; Griggs & Griggs for Sloan, ' adm'r. 1347. Edwin Arthur v. William McDowell Tucker. Error. Reserved in the District Court of Highland County. Ramsey, Matthews & Matthews, and Matthews, Higgins & Quinn for plaintiff; sloné & Newby, and R. T. Hough for defendant. 1348. The Clinton Fire Insurance Co. v. P. C Stevenson. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. Moulton, Johnson & Levy for plaintiff. 1349. Caroline Shade, Adm'r v. W. J. Kelly et al. Error to the District Court of Darke County. Baker & Baker for plaintiff; Anderson & Chenoworth for defendants. 1350. Woodsfield & Steubenville Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. The Monroe Bank et al. Spriggs & Driggs, and Martin & Richards, for plaintiff'; Hunter & Mallory for defendants. 1351. Albert Ely v. William E. Kellogg, Treas'r, &c. Error to the District Court of Lorain County. W. W. Boynton for plaintiff; E. G. Johnson for defendant. 1352. James Neeley v. Anna Cummings. Error to the District Court of Hamilton County. W. L. Dickson for plaintiff; L. W. Irwin for defendant. 1353. James B. Lyon et al v. James Myers. Error. Reserved in the District Court of Ottawa County. C. H. Everett, and C. H. Scribner for plaintiff; Everett & Cone for defendants. 1354. Rachel E. Cahall, Executrix, et al . C. A. White, Adm'r et al. Error to the District Court of Brown County. Thomas & Thomas for plaintiffs; C. A. White for defendants. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. JANUARY TERM 1882. Hon. JOHN W. OKEY, Chief Justice; Hon. WILLIAM WHITE, Hon. W. W. JOHNSON, Hon. GEO. W. McILVAINE, Hon. NICHOLAS LONGWORTH, Judges. Tuesday, November 14, 1882. GENERAL DOCKET. No. 118. Henry Acker v. Lucius McBride. Error to the District Court of Suminit County. Judgment affirined without penalty or attorney fee. There will be no further report. 125. William E. Pedrick v. L. A. Russell et al. Error to the District Court of Lake County. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Slutz v. Desenberg, 28 Ohio St 371. No penalty or attorney fee, and no further report. 130. Westley Royce, Assignee, &c. v. Commissioners of Knox County. Error to the District Court of Knox County. Judgment of the district court reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed. There was no error in the charge and the verdict was sustained by the evidence. The objection that the claim was not presented to the commissioners, was waived. There will be no further report. 189. Mahlon Conrad v. Joseph Conard. Error to the District Court of Licking County. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. To be reported here after. 193. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway v. Elias L. Beck et al. Error to the District Court of Darke County. Judgment reversed on the ground that the court below erred in refusing to consider t e grounds of alleged error contained in the substituted copy of the bill of exceptions, the original having been abstracted from the tiles, having already found that said substituted copy was a substantially correct copy of the original, and cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings. 198. Samuel Emerick, Guardian, &c., v. Henry Longnecker. Error to the District Court of Darke County. Judgment affirmed without penalty or attorney fee, and no further report. 206. Legrand B. Mills et al v. John Rodgers' heirs et al. Error to the District Court of Hocking County. Dismissed for want of prosecution, under Rule 4, at plaintiffs' costs. 210. Cyrus H. Coy v. Andrew Stephan, Treasurer, &c. Error to the District Court of Lucas County. Passed for proof of service of brief. and record by plaintiff. 217. Eliza Eck v. Mary C. Schooley. Error reserved in the District Court of Sandusky County. Dismissed for want of prosecution, under Rule 4, at costs of plaintiff in error. 417. Henry Longnecker v. Samuel Emerick. Error to the District Court of Darke County. Dismissed for want of necessary parties. There will be no further report. 1216. The State of Ohio on the relation of the Attorney General v. Andrew Baughman et al. Quo war ranto. Demurrer to the answer overruled and judgment for defendants. There will be a report hereafter. 1353. James B. Lyon et al. v. James Myers. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Ottawa County. Reserved in the district court. Judgment affirmed by agreement of parties. MOTION DOCKET. 87. Mark Bloomingdale v. Solomor Stein et al. Motion for stay of execution in cause No. 1156. Motion granted, and undertaking fixed at $500, as per entry. 172. Mark Bloomingdale v. Solomon Stein et al. Motion to take cause No. 1156 on the General Docket out of its order for hearing. Motion overruled. 173. Joseph A. Treat et al. ". Ransom Cole, Executor, &c. Motion to take cause No. 1211 on the General Docket out of its order. Motion overruled. Ohio Law Journal. COLUMBUS, OHIO, NOVEMBER 23, 1882. PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY AT COLUMBUS, OHIO, TERMS $5.00 PER ANNUM, IN ADVANCE, POSTAGE PREPAID. Single Numbers, 25 Cents. [THE LAW JOURNAL will not be stopped while subscribers are in arrears but will be continued at single number rates until paid. This does not however apply to regular subscribers who inadvertently neglect renewals; nor to those who pay within three months a full year's subscription.] MURDER. Within the past few months so many murders have been committed in editorial rooms, that we may be pardoned if we discuss the matter from an editorial standpoint. The quantity of reading matter absorbed each day by the people of this country is almost beyond comprehension; and we are not sure that the same might not be said of the quality as well. This wonderful demand for "news" has resulted in the establishment of a large number of newspapers, so called, which bid for and expect a share of public patronage without supplying anything within the province of honest journalism. To enable these bastard sheets to live by obtaining even a moderate circulation, their hungry managers resort to the device of gathering and publishing the most disgusting and insipid scandals which float upon the pools of gossip, knowing the avidity with which the depraved and immoral classes devour that which is nasty or which throws dirt upon somebody's fair fame. Of course the money of a thief or prostitute is as good as any other, but the manner of getting it is of very ques227 tionable honesty or propriety to say the least. 223 225 226 228 229 230 230 232 In this class of alleged newspapers the truth is not sought for, and the name of the peddler of scandals called "our informant," is never given. Any story, if it be sufficiently dirty to suit the tastes of the patrons of the paper, and of disgusting details that will ensure a purchase and perusal by thieves and harlots, is welcomed, no thought being given to the utter misery it must entail upon the innocent victim whose name may be thus blasted and blighted forever. This total disregard of honor or decency sometimes leads to serious trouble, and occasionally a suffering victim takes the law into his own hands and kills the cruel monster who has stolen his good name and sold it to scandal buzzards for his own personal gain. Occasionally, too, the monster fore-warned is fore-armed, and gets the drop on the victim and adds murder to his other crimes. For the benefit of both these parties, we believe the law as laid down by Judge Wylie, of Washington, D. C., in a case recently tried, ought to be more generally understood. The facts in the case to which we refer are as follows: Last spring A. M. Soteldo, a Washington correspondent of a Baltimore paper, was killed in an affray in the editorial rooms of the Washington Republican. The circumstances under which the affair took place were these: For some time previous Soteldo was the object of a series of personal and libelous attacks by Clarence Barton, the managing editor of the Republican. These attacks were made for the purpose of venting the personal spite Barton had against Soteldo. Feeling aggrieved, perhaps maddened, according to the testimony, Soteldo called on Barton accompanied by his brother, A. C. Soteldo, to remonstrate with him against his personal cause of action and to say that he had documents of a damaging character reflecting on Barton, and that if he did not cease his attacks, he (Soteldo) would retort in kind. Out of this occurred the affray, and several shots were fired, resulting in Barton being wounded and A. M. Soteldo being killed. It was charged that his brother, A. C. Soteldo, killed him while trying to shoot Barton, while it was claimed that the fatal shot was fired by Barton. A. C. Soteldo was indicted for murder and was recently tried and acquitted after the jury had been absent fifteen minutes. fire at them, and with his brother, went to the office. He showed a manuscript to Mr. Barton, not for publication, but containing a counter charge against him. No doubt the object was to let Barton see that he could retaliate, and would if the articles in the Republican were kept up. His Honor then reviewed the scene in the office and said that there was no proof that Soteldo drew a weapon at all, and it was only a common assault made by him. As soon as he received the blow, Barton put his hand in the desk, drew a pistol, put it to Soteldo's stomach, and attempted to fire. If that was the fact his opinion of the law was that in the blow given to Barton there was no excuse or justification for his drawing the weapon, and if the weapon had gone off and killed Soteldo and the case came before him, he should have held that Barton was guilty of murder. He would go further and say that Barton, having provoked the quarrel and prepared himself with a weapon, and killing Soteldo, might have been held guilty of murder. He would not undertake to say what his opinion was of the act of the prisoner, assuming that he fired the shot. The facts were with them. If they believed that the assault made upon Barton was not one calculated to endanger his life or do him bodily harm, but that Barton seized upon that for an excuse for a provocation to take the life of an enemy and had prepared for it, he left them to say whether the prisoner at the bar was guilty of any of the grades of homicide that he had given them. If they found that the two Soteldos visited the office armed with the purpose of bringing on a quarrel and the shooting of Barton, then the defendant was guilty of murder; but if they went there to demand a cessation of the attacks and prepared to meet what should arise out of a quarrel, then the act of killing was manslaughter. What he had said about justifiable homicide would then not apply, and Soteldo's death was brought on by his own indiscretion. The jury, (Judge Wylie said), had before them the fact that certain publications were made in the Republican newspaper, and Mr. Barton was the managing editor of that paper. The publications were of a kind that would sting a man not entirely callous to not entirely callous to himself or family. They were the libels of the press. No man ought to dare to write such articles, and no paper with respect to itself dare publish them. The public very often think that what they read in print ought to be believed sooner than what they hear on the street. They think that the printing gives currency to it. A notorious libeler may talk on the street and hurt nobody, but when he puts the libel in a paper he can do injury to a whole family. But the public, he thought, was reaching that state when they believed little they saw published. He did hope that the time would come when the public would give no more credence to these publications than was given to the libels on the street. There were gentlemen that he knew and had before his eye at that time who would do credit to a newspaper or any other profession in which they might be engaged. He did not intend to say anything against the Republican, but these two articles shoulding himself from some man or woman, whom not have been published. Mr. Soteldo took Reason and justice will sustain the position taken by Judge Wylie in his charge. Let it be understood that the professional libeler who may happen to control a paper, cannot be justified in defending himself with a deadly weapon from the attacks of the party libeled, and there would be less personality going on in the press. The cowardly owner of a scurrilous, black-mailing sheet, who carries a loaded revolver on his person and keeps one in his desk drawer for the purpose of protect he may maliciously have libeled, will then find that he can have no immunity from physical attacks, and he would be apt to cease his libelous course. It is to be hoped It is to be hoped that the doctrine laid down by Judge Wylie will become an accepted principle of law, if it is not so already. The idea that a newspaper man can sit in his sanctum and blast the character of a man or woman with his villainous pen, and then place a loaded revolver on his table, and station some one at the door to notify him of the approach of his libeled victim in time to enable him to draw and kill the aggrieved party, and then set up the plea of self-defense, is revolting to every sense of justice and reason. RESOLUTIONS OF RESPECT. The Erie County Bar has recently lost two of its honored and esteemed members and, at a meeting held a few days ago, adopted resolutions expressive of the loss sustained by these deaths, which, together with the brief sketches prepared, will be read with interest by the profession: Resolved, That in the death of the Hon. S. F. Taylor the Bar of Erie county has lost one of its most honored and esteemed, as well as its oldest members. He was a man who loved virtue and hated vice; a man of the strictest integrity and great moral worth, and whose ability and exemplary conduct were ever such as to command the esteem and approval not only of the court and bar, but of all who knew him. We mourn his death as that of a brother, and would mingle our tears of sorrow with those of his numerous and mourning relatives. Resolved, That the court of common pleas be requested to cause the foregoing resolution to be entered upon its journal as a token of respect to the memory of the deceased, and that a duly certified copy thereof be sent by the clerk to his widow. SEBASTIAN F. TAYLOR. Judge S. F. Taylor was formerly a resident of Milan, in this county. Few of its past residents have been more prominent in the history of the town or more fully entitled to the honor of its people than the subject of this sketch, whose death occurred at Chicago, October1st, at the residence of one of his daughters, Mrs. E. B. Rambo. Judge Taylor was born at Grand Island, Vermont, December 24, 1808. He was a witness of the battle of Plattsburgh, Lake Champlain, during the war of 1812-15 with Great Britain. He studied law at Greensboro, Vt., and was admitted to the bar in 1832. In 1833 he was married to Miss Judith Kellogg, who survives him after a union of 49 years. He removed to Conneaut in 1835, where he practiced his profession, meantime to some extent editing the Conneaut Reporter. In 1841 he was elected as Representative from Ashtabula County to the Ohio Legislature, and in 1842 was one of the Whig members who resigned to prevent the passage of a highly obnoxious Congressional apportionment bill which was insisted on by the Democratic majority in that body. In 1843 Judge Taylor came to Milan, where he continued the practice of his tive life was spent, and his ability, industry profession. Here twenty-three years of his acand high character most signally shown. Here his usefulness was seen in every direction open to his activity. In politics he was ever earnest and influential, in public affairs always ready to bear his share of burdens, in morals a friend and supporter of all that was sound and pure; in religious circles devoted and active in behalf of the faith which so largely engrossed his convictions. In all relations his labors and influence were bestowed freely in behalf of the well-being of his fellow citizens, while his personal example was valuable as a model for others. In 1844 Judge Taylor was elected as the Whig candidate for Prosecuting Attorney of Erie County, and was re-elected in 1846, serving for four years, in which capacity, by his stern fidelity and unyielding purpose, he accomplished much toward the enforcement of the laws and the repression of crime, and it is due to his memory to say that such faithfulness often subjected him to antagonisms from which too many officers of the law are ready to shrink. In 1856 he was elected Judge of the Common Pleas Court for Lucas, Sandusky, Ottawa, Erie and Huron counties, in which capacity he served so acceptably that he was re-elected in 1861, making ten years. At the close of his second term (1866) he removed to Sandusky, where he resumed practice, and where was his residence until his death. In December, 1881, he made a visit to his children in Chicago, where he was taken with the disease which terminated his life. His remains were buried in that city. Judge Taylor left as survivors of his family Mrs Taylor and three children, Mrs J. Ě Otis, Mrs. E. B. Rambo and Mr. Fredrick P. Taylor. CLARK WAGGONER. LUCAS SELKIRK BEECHER. Resolved, That it is with a feeling of sadness we have learned of the death of our brother lawyer, Lucas S. Beecher, and present the following tribute to his memory: Lucas Selkirk Beecher was born in New |