the plaintiff's smoking tobacco, and thereby caused him optical injury. The "lark" is a bird not specially beloved of the judges. Although a good deal of latitude is allowed to schoolboys, yet the court in Markley v. Whitman, 95 Mich. 236; 35 Am. St. Rep558; 20 L. R. A. 55, could not bring itself to countenance the practice of " rushing," or the " horse game." In this game a line of boys is formed, one behind another, an unsuspecting victim is found in front, and then the foremost boy is rushed against him by those in the rear. In this instance the victim's neck was nearly broken and he per manently lost his voice. The foremost lad in the human catapult was adjudged to pay $2,500 damages. And so, regardless of his intent, a schoolboy was held in damages for kicking one of his young mates on the shin in school hours. Vosburg i<. Putney, 80 Wis. 523; 27 Am. St. Rep. 47; 14 L. R. A. 226. The court said it would have hesitated to hold the defendant if the injury had been inflicted in sport on the playground, but the act was unlawful because kicking shins was not in order during study time. In like manner the absence of intent to hurt will not justify the creditor in laying hands gently on his debtor, while sleeping in his bed, to wake him up in order to present his bill. Richmond r. Fiske, 160 Mass. 34. And so also where the intention was merely to express admiration, as where the gallant railway conductor kissed the female passen ger against her desire. Croaker v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.,36 Wis. 657; 17 Am. Rep. 504. As this was not in the apparent course of the conductor's employment it cost the employ ers $1,000. So the poet's denunciation of the fellow who lays hands upon a woman save in the way of kindness may even be extended to kind acts which are not invited. But where no corporeal injury is inflicted, nor capable of being inflicted, as for example, where one points an unloaded gun at another, knowing it to be unloaded, there is a difference of opinion whether the terror of

the person pointed at will sustain a complaint of assault and battery. That it will, is held in Com. z-. White, 110 Mass. 107; that it will not is held in Chapman r. State, 78 Ala. 463; 56 Am. Rep. 42; State r. God frey, 17 Oreg. 300; 11 Am. St. Rep. 830; and other cases pro and con are cited in these. It seems to the writer that the Massachusetts doctrine is preferable. The presenter of the weapon should be estopped by the appear ance, for very few persons would have presence of mind to inquire if the gun is loaded before getting frightened. "Oh! why does the white man follow my path?" exclaimed the Indian chief. That was what Chappell asked about Stewart, in 82 Md. 323; 51 Am. St. Rep. 476; but the court refused to enjoin the following, and watching, although it annoyed Chappell, in jured his business and credit, and brought him into suspicion. The law even extends its care of the human body after death, and insists that it shall have proper burial. This was laid down in Reg. v. Stewart, 12 Ad. & El. 773. In Kanavan's case, i Maine, 226, it was held indictable to cast a dead human body into a river, and the court grew elo quent over the enormity of the offense. So laws against disinterring dead bodies for the purpose of dissection are almost universal. Dickens gave voice to the common and humane sentiment on this subject when he represented Mrs. Cruncher as assiduously "flopping" in prayer to turn her husband. Jerry, from his unholy course in this regard. But cremation instead of burial is not in frequent in this country, and our courts have had nothing to say against it, while the English court has distinctly approved it. Queen r. Price, 12 Q. B. Div. 247. The law has long outgrown its ancient prejudice against suicides, which denied them the rites of Christian sepulture, and did not even grant them the "maimed rites" which the poet gave to poor distracted Ophelia, but buried their bodies at the crossroads with