Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/327

 298

fans and parasols, made of delicate and expensive materials, ornamented with carving, fragile in con struction, and intended more for ornament than use, although to some extent useful, are "trinkets"; and that a woman's shawl made wholly of lace is "lace." The Court said : — "Bernstein v. Baxendale, 6 C. B. N. S. 251, seems to he a leading case on this question. The following is therein reported as a synopsis of the argument of counsel : ' The definition of " trinket " in all the dictionaries carefully ex cludes articles of utility, such as these bracelets, brooches, and pins which are mere fastenings for dress. Webster describes it as " a small ornament, as a jewel, a ring, or the like "; Richardson, " any small piece of ornament or decor ation, of more ornament than use"; and Dr. Johnson, "ornaments of dress; superfluities of decoration"; and this latter is adopted by Bailey.' Whereupon Cockburn, Ch. J., said : ' Richardson's definition seems to me to be the best, — a thing " of more ornament than use." Can a thing be said to be the less an ornament because there may be superadded to it the quality of utility? ' And in his opinion, construing the word ' trinket,' he added: 'There is a dis tinction between some of the articles which are more especially articles of ornament, with reference to dress, and others which, though of a somewhat ornamental character, do not constitute ornaments of dress, but are only occa sionally produced. As to the former, — bracelets, shirt pins, rings, and brooches, — they are clearly articles of per sonal decoration and adornment, and literally fall within the description of "trinkets." It is said that, inasmuch as they are also articles of utility, they cease to be trinkets. But I do not agree to that. Their main and principal object plainly is that of ornament. It is true they may also be applied to some useful purpose; yet inasmuch as they are essentially ornamental, I do not think the fact of their being capable of being turned to some use raises any difficulty. But even supposing their main object was utility for the purpose of dress, if made part of the ornament of apparel, they equally fall within the strictest definition of " trinkets." The other articles, viz., the portemonna'es and the smelling bottles,

are more difficult to deal with. Still I think that, though not worn so as to be constantly exhibited to view, and though to a certain extent articles of use, and perhaps oi necessity, yet if an ornamental character is given to them to such an extent as to make that their main and primary object, I think they may be fairly and properly considered to fall within the description of " trinkets," in the general sense of the word. If that may be taken to be the true definition of "trinkets" generally, a fortiori ought that sense to be given to the word in this act of parliament, the object of which is to protect the carrier against the risk of having to take charge of packages of great value in small compass? In that respect there can be n0 difference, in point of risk and danger to the carrier, whether the article is designed to be carried in the pocket, or exposed on the dress of the party.' Bovill, Q.C., referred to the case of Atty.-Gen. v. Harley, 5 Russ, 173, 'Where "ivory fans" and " seals " were held to be " trinkets." ' "One meaning often given to the word ' trinket ' is that it is a mere trifle, possessing but little value. But it seems that to give the word as used in the section. under con sideration this meaning would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the law, and tend to defeat one of its main purposes."

"Spirituous Liquors." — The Supreme Court of the United States has lately held, with some show of classical learning, that lager beer is not " spiritu ous " nor "wine." Chancellor Walworth, in that celebrated opinion in Nevin v. Ladue, 3 Denio, 450, held that ale and "strong beer" are "strong or spirituous," and in Rhode Island it has been held that lager beer is " strong, malt, and intoxicating." 1 R.I. 592. But whether " intoxicating," is a ques tion for the jury in New York. Rati v. People, 63 N.Y. 277. There is no pleasanter vacation reading than Chancellor Walworth's opinion above mentioned, especially with a few bottles of lager at hand which "duke est d'estpere in loco."