FEDERAL COURTS-DETECTED VERDICTS IN CIVIL ACTIONS

Juries must answer to questions of fact and judges to questions of law. This is the fundamental maxim acknowledged by the Constitution. When no fact question is present, no right to jury trial in a civil suit exists, and the constitutional guaranty is, therefore, not violated by the exercise of control by the court in keeping the jury to determination of questions of fact or in keeping it within the bounds of reason. One of the most important and often used methods of control is the directed verdict, whereby the court peremptorily instructs the jury to bring in a verdict for one of the parties and then enters judgment accordingly

OBTAINING THE GIFT TAX EXCLUSION ON GIFTS IN TRUST: DRAFTING AND LEGISLATIVE SUGGESTIONS

The purposes of this article are to outline the future interest pitfalls in the use of various conventional trust provisions, to explore remedial drafting possibilities even under the present law, and to suggest a statutory amendment which will eliminate the fundamental defects of the present poorly-drafted law

St. Mawr: A Critical Study

Style appears elusively in the flashing shape of a conception. Ideally, the way a thing is thought of becomes the style in which it is expressed. Style is not the man; it is his thought. Lawrence\u27s style is astonishing because he conceived of things in an astonishing way: in St. Mawr the sophisticated prose techniques are the mode of Lawrence\u27s perception, the means of his discoveries

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-SEARCH AND SEIZURE AS AN INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST

Petitioners, suspected of carrying on an illegal lottery, had been under police observation for several months, during which time one of the petitioners maintained a room in a rooming house in the District of Columbia. On the day of the arrest, a police officer, without a warrant, but believing the unlawful lottery to be in operation, climbed through a window of the landlady\u27s room, and admitted two other officers. They proceeded to the petitioner\u27s room, where one of the officers looked through the transom. Seeing the petitioners working on an illegal lottery, the officers entered the room, arrested the petitioners and seized various articles in plain view that were used in the lottery. Petitioners made a timely motion for suppression of the evidence so seized, alleging that the seizure was a violation of their constitutional rights making the evidence inadmissible. The trial court denied the motion and the petitioners were convicted; the court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed. Even though the arrest may have been lawful, seizure of the lottery equipment without a search warrant was unreasonable and, therefore, a violation of petitioners\u27 constitutional rights. McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191 (1948)

FINDERS-APPLICATION OF STATUTE TO FINDER OF TREASURE TROVE

Defendants, a church committee, procured bundles of rags which were distributed to women who wove the rags into rugs. One such bundle was delivered to plaintiff who found $2100 in bills concealed therein. Plaintiff took the money to defendants, but no claimant appeared. A statute provided that a finder of lost money or goods having a value of$3.00 or more must give notice in a prescribed manner, or, failing to do so, be liable to the town in which found for one-half the value of the goods and for the other half to the person who should sue for it. In defense to a suit for restoration of the money, defendants pleaded plaintiff\u27s failure to comply with the statute. On appeal from judgment for plaintiff, held, affirmed. The common law doctrine of treasure trove has not been merged in the statutory provisions relating to lost property, and title to treasure trove belongs to the finder as against all but the true owner. Zech v. Accola, 253 Wis. 80, 33 N.W. (2d) 232 (1948)