off; he then pointed with his finger to the accused and to the officers of the court. Filleron made a sign in the affirmative. M. Paulmier repeated his gestures, and at the same time imitated the movements of a cook, who shakes a stew-pan over the fire. Filleron signified, by lively gestures, that he understood him, repeated the motions, and expressed with his fingers, that he had stolen three stew-pans and a utensil managed with both hands. He was then asked how he had effected an entrance into the Asylum. He now by attitudes and motions signified, that he had crept under a door; broken a pane of glass with his knife, and having passed through a long passage, got into the kitchen; that having eaten, he had taken three stew-pans from the nails on which they were hung; and, after wrapping them in a cloth, had made his escape.

President. Ask him where he was educated.

M. Paulmier lowered his hands, in order to convey the idea of a small child, and raised them gradually, to represent its growth. Filleron placed his hand on the collar of his jacket, to signify that he was educated in the Orphans' Asylum, where the children wear grey jackets with red collars.

President. He was sent away from the Asylum for bad conduct; ask him why he went away.

Filleron answered this question, by signifying that he had assumed a sulky mien. He then scratched his hand, to express the idea, that he had been sent to the Bicètre.

President. Ask him if he has been employed as a tailor.

M. Paulmier imitated the motions of a person who is sewing. Filleron made a sign in the negative, and folded his arms, in order to signify that had no occupation. He then stretched them out, as if he were pushing violently; by this he intended to express the idea, that he had worked at a well, and had turned the wheel. President. Ask him why he ran away the second time.

Filleron expressed, by very intelligible signs, that he was tired and had been beaten. He then made a wry face, and turned his pocket wrong side outwards, to signify that he had not been well paid.

President. How has he lived since he ran away from the Bicètre?

M. Paulmier drew a large circle, to represent the city of Paris, and imitated the motions of a man who is eating and sleeping. Filleron understood this at once, and placed himself in an attitude as if he were blowing a trumpet, and then pretended to eat, to signify that he had lived with Letertre.

President. Ask him, whether some days previous to his arrest he did not give five francs to one of the orphan boys who was sweeping before the gate of the Orphans' Asylum.

M. Paulmier showed him five francs, and endeavored to con

vey to him the idea of a boy who is sweeping, to whom something is given. Filleron made a sign in the affirmative, and expressed by signs, that he had obtained the money by working at the well.

President. Ask him why he committed the theft.

It was very difficult for M. Paulmier to make this understood. When Filleron at last comprehended his meaning, he expressed by signs, that he was large, subject to hunger and thirst, and that he must have a pinch of snuff.

President. Ask him if he knows that it is unlawful to steal.

M. Paulmier acted as if he would have Filleron to take away his jacket, pointed to the gens-d'armes and the officers of the court, repeated the same signs pointing to himself, and then placed himself in a position, as if he were seizing a thief, and binding his hands. To all this, Filleron answered by imitating the motions of a man who acts eagerly, to signify that he was forced by hunger to steal.

According to the statement of the Commissary of Police, before whom Filleron was first brought, when the stolen clothes which he had on were taken from him, he evinced signs of the greatest despair, and attempted to seize the sabre of one of the gens-d'armes; and it became necessary to bind him. He then made signs as if in mockery, and as if he wished to throw himself into the water, or cut his throat. After this, he bent his head down and wept bitterly, and then remained motionless, and as if sunk in the deepest despondency.

To the question, whether he had broken into, the Asylum, Filleron answered by signs, that he had broken a pane of glass; but that it had been broken before, and he earnestly insisted on this last circumstance. When the stolen articles were shown to him, he recognised them as such, and made signs that he was hungry. M. Paulmier asked him if he was sorry. Filleron again expressed by signs, that he was hungry and had nothing to eat; and then placed himself in an attitude, as if some one were pushing him and pointing out to him some object. M. Paulmier explained his meaning to be that he was instigated by some other deaf and dumb persons to commit the theft. On motion of the AdvocatGénéral he was asked, whether he had not been already punished in the Asylum for theft. To this he answered by signs, that he was then very small, that he was allowed but a very small portion of bread and was hungry. He then assumed the fixed posture of a soldier, to signify that he had been punished in that manner. President. Ask him if he has any idea of religion.

M. Paulmier pointed to the heavens, placed himself in an attitude of supplication, and struck himself on the breast, in sign of guilt. Filleron did not appear to understand him; but signified that it had been attempted to teach him to read and write. M.

Magni, the Director of the Orphans' Asylum, stated that he was convinced that Filleron could not distinguish between good and evil.

The second witness was the deaf and dumb cook. He was a pupil of the Abbé de l'Epée, and could understand and make himself understood with greater facility. He appeared to be in high spirits, saluted the court with great civility, and at the order of M. Paulmier raised his hand with a very significant expression, denoting that he would open his whole heart. An inarticulate sound, to which he gave utterance, resembled the French word oui. He expressed by signs the letters of his name, Antoine Alexandre Letertre, and that he was forty-seven years of age; he then placed himself in an attitude as if he were blowing a trumpet, and laughed heartily. He expressed, by very intelligible signs, that he had taken the stolen articles, and that Filleron had informed him that he had received them for the purpose of getting them tinned over. He manifested great abhorrence, placed one hand on his heart, and covered his eyes with the other, and then pretended to push back the stew-pans that were lying on the table, with violence, to signify that he did not know they had been stolen. He then imitated the movements of a man who is seized and bound to a post. M. Paulmier declared, that the honest Letertre well understood that theft was unlawful, and that its consequences were imprisonment and exposure in the pillory. Here arose a very lively pantomime between Letertre and Fil leron. M. Paulmier explained, that Letertre asserted in contradiction of Filleron, that the latter had said, he had received the stew-pans for the purpose of getting them tinned over.

President. Ask the witness if Filleron has ever before delivered to him stolen goods. Letertre denied this, and made signs that he was honest, had a good heart, and pushed the stolen articles from him.

The other witnesses had nothing of importance to state.

The Avocat-Général contended, that notwithstanding the compassion we may feel for the condition of the deaf and dumb, the law must take its course; that there were deaf and dumb persons, possessing intelligence and discernment; and that they were to be judged according to the measure of their understanding. In conclusion, he insisted that Filleron was capable of distinguishing between good and evil; that he had acted with intelligence, and must therefore be pronounced guilty.

The counsel for the accused, in the defence assumed the position, that a person, deaf and dumb from his birth, who has never received any education, is not amenable to the law. In this condition he cannot form any ideas, for there is wanting to him words, the elements of all ideas. Even if, by a kind of inspiration and by observation, he has acquired a knowledge of the

consequences of evil actions, still it would not be possible for him to choose, with a clear discrimination, between an action forced upon him by a state of extreme necessity, like that of the prisoner, and a forbearance from that action for fear of its consequences. He has not that self-control, that freedom of will, upon which all liability to punishment rests. His actions are not to be measured by the standard of morality. But suppose this position to be untenable, he is not subject to punishment, according to the well established rule of law, lex non obligat nisi promulgata. However great may be his inclination, he cannot obtain a knowledge of the law; and the apostle Paul says, 'I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet." Filleron has indeed seen punishments, executions, and gens-d'armes; but gens-d'armes are not the flesh become law. Were the seeing such objects as these sufficient to create a liability to punishment, a criminal code of laws would be useless, and it would only be necessary to ascertain whether the person accused has ever passed by the gallows.

Filleron was acquitted. He received an earnest admonition from M. Paulmier, which appeared to affect him.

Whether a minor is to be joined as defendant in a suit on a contract to which he is a party.

The following case at nisi prius is taken from the London Atlas of June 7, 1829. The name of the judge is not given in the report of the case.

The defendants were farmers, father and son, and carried on their business jointly. Plaintiff had supplied them with timber and in his bills had always entered them as partners. The son was a minor.

Having occasion to sue them on a bill for timber, the plaintiff wished to be advised whether he should proceed against the father alone, or if he must proceed against both and leave it to the son to plead infancy, or how otherwise.

Opinion. I am clearly of opinion the plaintiff must sue the father alone, as the son being an infant is not liable and ought not to be joined. 1 Stark. 26; 5 B. & A. 127. And this is the only plan to be adopted; because if both were sued and the infant should plead non-age, the plaintiff could not enter nolle prosequi as to him, but would have to discontinue the action and commence de novo against the other party separately. 3 Esp. 76. And if the non-joinder should be pleaded in abatement, the infancy may be shown in replication.

LORD TENTERDEN,

Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench.

[As a knowledge of the character of a judge throws some light

upon his decisions, and as the reports of cases in the English court of King's bench are as familiarly quoted in this country as those of our own courts, we give our readers the following sketch of the present chief justice of that court, taken from a London paper.]

Some one of the sages of our law, we believe Lord Kenyon himself, without the advantage of patrimony, at least to any great extent, remarked that there was one indispensable requisite to success in the profession of the bar,-that was, to be born without a shilling. The justness of this remark as a general proposition, we certainly take leave to deny, though, no doubt, there are particular and splendid instances in which success has been achieved by those on whom fortune had in earlier life most inauspiciously frowned. Among the number of these latter at present living, the chancellor, (Lord Lyndhurst,) the ex-chancellor Eldon, the Lords Stowell and Plunkett, and Sir John Leach, as well as the subject of this sketch, may be enumerated.

The origin of Charles Abbott, now Lord Tenterden, is indeed more humble than most of his predecessors. He is the son of an honest and respectable barber of Canterbury, (as we have been. credibly informed,) in which town he was born about the year 1760. The occupation of the father of Lord Tenterden brought him, as may be supposed, into frequent contact with the resident prebends and canons of the cathedral; and the honest conduct and respectable appearance of the old man, joined to his respectful demeanor, contributed to render him and his family general favorites of the domestic circle; however, the present Lord Tenterden came more under the notice of the clergy, and they looked on him thus early with a favoring and friendly eye.

At a very early age, the future chief justice of all England became a scholar at the free school of Canterbury, which is open, as a matter of right, to the sons of all the burgesses. At this school, young Abbott acquired the reputation of being studious and well behaved; and after a short period, his progress in learning was such that he was appointed tutor to a young gentleman of the name of Thurlow, an illegitimate son of Chancellor Thurlow. When Thurlow went home for the holidays, Mr. Abbott always accompanied him, and the father of the young scholar had thus an opportunity afforded him of becoming more intimately acquainted with the character of his son's tutor. The result of this knowledge, on the part of his lordship, was highly favorable to Mr. Abbott, who acquired and deserved the esteem and friendship of his powerful patron. As a consequence of his good opinion, and through the instrumentality and assistance of Lord Thurlow, Mr. Abbott was entered at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in the year 1781. About six years previously, Lord Eldon and