be  applied  to,  by  a  very  natural  mistake  He  concludes  this  portion  of  his  view

the  term  *  exemplary '  has  been  supposed  with  these  remarks :  "  Where  shall  be  the

to  refer   to  criminal   punishment  for  the  limit  of  the  confusion  and  absurdity  in-

sake  of  public  example,  —  an  idea  which  was  volved  in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  the  doc-

not  included  in   'exemplary  damages  '  as  trine  of  vindictive  and  punitive  damages  in

formerly  understood."  a  civil  suit  with  the  reason,  the  logic,  the

Judge  Foster  then  proceeds  to  point  out  symmetry  of  the  sense  of  jurisprudence?

how  this  doctrine  violates  fundamental  and  And  what  power  can  avail  to  stay  the  utter

constitutional  law,  first  by  punishing  twice  demolition  of  the  constitutional  safeguards

for  the  same  offence.     He  cites  Fox  v.  from  the  arbitrary  despotism  which  would

Ohio,  5  How.  (U.  S.)  435,  in  which  McLean,  impose  upon  them  cruel,  unjust,  and  op-

T.,  says  "  there  is  no  principle  better  estab-  pressively    accumulated     punishments  ? "

lished  by  the  common  law,  none  more  fully  Again  he  says,  **  When  it  is  asserted,  as  it

recognized  in  the  federal  and  State  consti-  has  been,  that  the  true  principle  is  that

tutions,  than  that  an  individual  should  not  judgments  in  both  the  civil  and  criminal

be  put  in  jeopardy  twice  for  the  same  of-  courts  should   operate  as  mutual  checks

fence."    He  ridicules  the  decision  in  Pen-  upon  each  other,  thereby  increasing  or  di-

dleton  V.  Davis,  i  Jones  (N.  Car.),  L.  98,  minishing  the  punishment  in  this  suit,  it  is

and  the  reason  given  for  this  absurd  con-  said  much  too  hastily ;  and  if  only  a  little

elusion  that  a  plaintiff  should  be  so  pun-  more  reflection  and  consideration  had  been

ished  twice,  though  they  deemed  it  wrong ;  given  the  matter,  it  would  not  have  been

that  reason  being  that  the  circuit  court  of  said  at  all.    See  7  American  Law  Rev.  Jan.
