CONSERVATOR.

66

1. The act of 1885 (Session Laws of 1885, ch. 110, secs. 81, 84,) provides that conservators shall have the charge of" and "manage" the estates of their wards. Held that under this statute conservators have power to make leases for a reasonable time of the real estate of their wards. Palmer v. Cheseboro, 114.

2. A conservator having made such a lease can recover possession of the premises on the expiration of the term in his own name as conservator. CONSPIRACY.

1. If two or more persons combine to commit a crime or misdemeanor, such combination is itself a crime. State v. Glidden, 46.

2. And where the end sought is in itself lawful, a combination to use criminal means to accomplish it is a crime. Ib.

3. The act of 1878 (Session Laws of 1878, ch. 92), provides that "every person who shall threaten or use any means to intimidate any person, to compel him to do or abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do, or shall injure or threaten to injure his property with the intent so to intimidate him, shall be liable," etc. The defendants conspired to intimidate the publishers of a certain newspaper called the Journal & Courier, to compel them to discharge against their will certain of their workmen and to employ the defendants and such persons as they should name. Held to fall within the prohibition of the statute. Ib.

4. The defendants' purpose was to deprive the publishing company of its liberty to carry on its business in its own way, although in doing so it interfered with no right of the defendants. The motive was to gain an advantage unjustly and at the expense of others, and therefore the act was legally corrupt. As a means of accomplishing the purpose the parties intended to harm the publishing company, and therefore it was malicious. Ib.

5. It was also a crime for the defendants to seek to injure other workmen of the publishing company by depriving them of their employment. These workmen had just as good a right to work for the publishing company as the defendants had, and their right is entitled to the same consideration and protection. Ib.

6. The defendants attempted not merely to injure the publishing company, but all persons who should patronize that company by subscribing for their paper or advertising in it. Held that such conduct must be regarded as primâ facie malicious and corrupt. Ib.

7. The origin and meaning of the term "boycott" considered. Ib. 8. One K, who was one of the conspirators, referring to a controversy they had just had with another newspaper, had said that if they had another battle the publishing company would have to pay the expenses of the boycott. This declaration was made to one of the workmen in the company's office. Shortly before this K and one of the defendants had had an interview with this workman in which they endeavored to induce him to take part with them against the publishing company. Held that K's declarations might be regarded as supplementary to the efforts last mentioned and so as acts in the prosecution of the conspiracy, and that as such they were admissible against the defendant. Ib. 9. To prove that one of the defendants distributed a certain circular, a

witness was introduced who testified that this defendant and another person not known was seen by him in the evening walking up and down in the street in company, and that from between them copies of the circular were from time to time dropped on the sidewalk. The circular was as follows in large letters: " A word to the wise is sufficient. Boycott the Journal & Courier." Held that this was proper evidence to go to the jury and that they might properly find upon it that the defendant in question distributed the circulars. Ib. 10. The same defendants with others had previously been active in boycotting a paper called “The News." In carrying out their conspiracy against the publishing company frequent reference was made to what had been done against “The News,”—such references being intended and understood as a threat against the publishing company. Held that to enable the jury to understand the full force of the threat, evidence was admissible as to what had been done against "The News." Ib. 11. A witness who had testified for the state as to a certain interview which he had had with the publishers of "The News" as to the payment by them of $500, was asked on cross-examination what one of the defendants had said to him at a subsequent time with regard to the same matter, the state in the direct examination not having referred to it. Held to be inadmissible. Ib.

12. A witness was offered by the state for the purpose of proving that he printed certain circulars used by the defendants. On the stand the witness refused to testify on the ground that his testimony would tend to criminate him. The judge of another court was then called on to testify what the witness had sworn to with regard to the matter on the trial of another case before him. The evidence was objected to on the ground that as the witness was not a defendant his declarations as a co-conspirator could not be proved. Held that as the testimony was not offered for that purpose, but for the purpose of proving the fact that the witness printed the circulars, and as the evidence was not objected to as inadmissible for that purpose, the error, if any, in admitting the evidence was not a ground for granting a new trial. Ib. 13. A witness offered by the state testified that she heard a conversation among five or six printers, members of the typographical union, among whom was one of the defendants and the others not identified, in which it was stated, but by whom she could not say, that they were paying fifty cents a week for the expenses of the Courier boycott, and that it would be paid for by the Courier. Held that it was not going too far to assume that they were parties to the conspiracy, and that their declarations were therefore admissible not only against the defendant who was present, but against the other defendants also. Ib. CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS.

1. G gave H a bond by which, on the payment by H of $17,000 with interest within a certain time, he was to convey to II certain described land, free from incumbrance; the bond containing the following clause "It being understood that H is to pay to Ca note he holds against me of $3,000 with interest, and that the amount paid thereon shall be in part payment on the above." Held that under this bond it was optional with H whether or not to pay the $17,000 and take the land,

and that if he did not do so he was not bound to pay the $3,000 note
to C. Gunn's Appeal from Commissioners, 149.

2. Where a party agrees to pay for certain plans and specifications for
buildings a percentage on their "estimated cost," and there is nothing
in the contract to determine the matter, the "estimated cost" will be
taken to mean the reasonable cost of buildings erected in accordance
with the plans and specifications. Lambert v. Sanford, 437.
See INDEMNITY BOND, 1.

CONSTRUCTION OF FINDING.

See FINDING (CONSTRUCTION OF).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

See INTOXICATING LIQUORS, 2.
CONTRACT (BREACH OF).

1. Courts of eminent authority in England and this country have
held that no recovery can be had for labor or materials furnished under
a special contract, unless the contract has been performed according to
its terms, or its performance has been dispensed with by the other
party. Pinches v. Swedish Lutheran Church, 183.

2. The hardship of this rule upon the contractor who has undesignedly
violated his contract, and the inequitable advantage it gives to the
party who receives and retains the benefit of his labor and materials,
has led to its qualification, and the weight of authority is now clearly
in favor of allowing compensation for such services and materials,
where the deviation from the contract was not wilful and the other
party has availed himself of and been benefited by such labor and
materials. Ib.

3. As a general rule the amount of such compensation is to depend upon
the extent of the benefit conferred, having reference to the contract
price for the entire work. Ib.

4. In cases where only some additions to the work are required to finish
it according to the contract, or where the defect may be remedied at a
reasonable expense, it is proper to deduct from the contract price the
sum which it would cost to complete it. Ib.

5. The plaintiff had contracted to erect a church for the defendants upon
their land in accordance with certain plans and specifications. He
completed the building, but it varied in several material particulars
from the requirements of the contract. The defendants knew of these
variations and objected to them, but went into the occupancy of the
building. The plaintiff had acted in good faith and the building as
completed was reasonably adapted to the wants of the defendants and
its use was beneficial to them. It would have been impracticable to
make the building conform to the contract without taking it partially
down and rebuilding it. Held that the court below properly allowed
the plaintiff the contract price, deducting therefrom the diminution in
value of the building by reason of the deviations from the contract. Ib.
CONTRACT (CONSTRUCTION OF).

See CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.

CONTRACT (RESCISSION OF).
(See LESSOR AND LESSEE, 6, 7, 8.)

CORONER.

1. The statute (Revision of 1887, sec. 2011) provides that every coroner shall reduce to writing and return to the clerk of the Superior Court in the county, the testimony of all witnesses examined in any inquest, with the finding, and all certificates sent him by the medical examiner in the case. Held that these documents in the hands of the clerk are open to the inspection of all persons interested. Daly v. Dimock, 579. 2. And that the inspection of them could not be refused to a person indicted for a homicide, as to which an inquest had been held. Ib. 3. Under the statute there is no discretion in the matter on the part of the coroner, the clerk or the court. Ib.

CORPORATION.

1. There were five directors of a joint stock corporation, and it became a matter of importance that it should make an immediate assignment for the benefit of its creditors. Two of the directors were absent in distant states and could not be reached by notice of a meeting of the directors, but notice was sent them at their places of residence in this state. Held that the three remaining directors, being a quorum, had power to make a valid assignment. Chase v. Tuttle, 455.

2. If their absence was to be regarded as creating two vacancies which the remaining directors had power to fill, they would not have been bound to fill the vacancies and would have had power to act as the sole directors.

Ib.

3. One of the directors present was C, who had been formally elected a director. By the joint stock act of 1880 the directors of such corporations were to be stockholders. C was not at the time a personal stockholder, but was the secretary, treasurer and managing director of a savings bank which was a stockholder. The court inclined to the opinion that he might be regarded as a stockholder by representation. Ib.

4. However this might be, he was eligible under the act of 1876, (Session Laws, ch. 65,) which provides that any one of the directors or executive officers of a corporation owning stock in another corporation, may be elected a director of the latter corporation. Ib.

5. This act is not repealed by the joint stock act of 1880. Ib. 6. The act of 1885, (Session Laws 1885, ch. 110, sec. 100,) provides that the directors of any corporation may make an assignment of it in insolvency "in a legal meeting called for such purpose." Held that, where there was no provision in the by-laws of the corporation to the contrary, the directors, when together, could agree at once to hold a meeting for the purpose, without any previous notice. Ib.

7. And in the present case, two of the five directors being beyond the reach of notice, the remaining three, being all who were capable of acting, could thus meet and act. Ib.

8. The record of the directors' meeting at which the assignment in question was made, ran as follows:-"At a special meeting of the directors called for the purpose of making an assignment for the benefit of all the creditors," etc. Held that, upon this record, until the contrary was shown, it would be presumed that the purpose of the meeting was specified in the call. Ib.

9. The burden of proof of showing that it was not so specified would be on the other party. Ib.

10. Notice had been sent by the secretary to the directors by telegram, and the court below found that "there was no evidence that the telegrams contained any notice of the purpose of the proposed meeting." Held not to be a finding that the telegrams did not state the purpose of the meeting, but only that the contents of the telegrams were not proved, and that the state of the question was not varied by the finding. Ib.

11. A corporation was organized for the manufacture of copper and brass goods. Held not to be ultra vires for it to borrow money to invest in the raw material in excess of its necessities at the time, for the purpose of taking advantage of low prices in the market. Shoe & Leather Bank's Appeal from Commissioners, 469.

See CITY, 1 to 4.

CORRECTION OF DEED.

See CITY, 8.

COVENANT AGAINST INCUMBRANCES

See DAMAGES, 2.

CREDITOR.

See TRUST Deed for Creditors DAMAGES.

1. Where a suit is instituted to try some question of permanent right, and the plaintiff is found entitled to that right, but it is a case where only nominal damages can be given, the fact that the damages are merely nominal does not constitute an objection to granting a new trial; but if the plaintiff has failed in the substantial object of the suit and has left only a bare technical right to recover nominal damages, a new trial will not be granted him for that purpose. Ely v. Parsons, 83. 2. In actions on covenants against incumbrances the rule of damages is the actual damage sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the breach of the covenant. If he is evicted and there is a total failure of consideration, he will recover the value of the land at the time of eviction, provided he has paid the purchase money. If the purchase money has been partly paid he will recover the amount paid with interest, not exceeding the value of the land. The purchase money having been paid, if the purchaser removes the incumbrance, the damages will be the amount paid for that purpose, not exceeding the value of the land. If the purchaser has paid nothing and is not evicted he will recover only nominal damages. Beecher v. Baldwin, 419.

3. In actions of fraud and to recover for flagrant wrongs the jury may include in their verdict not merely the actual damage but the plaintiff's expenses of litigation. It is not usual to introduce evidence of the amount of these expenses, but it is not erroneous to admit proof of specific expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the prosecution of his suit. Bennett v. Gibbons, 450.

See CONTRACT (BREACH OF), 5; RECOUPMENT, 1.

DAMAGES, HEARING IN ON DEFAULT.

See HEARING IN DAMAGES.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.

1. The selectmen of the defendant town, under an act of the legislature