Fertilizers

The manufacture of fertilizer Is a lawful business. The materials necessary to its composition, though objectionable and unwholesome, are property. So long as a municipal corporation allows such an industry within its limits, it cannot forbid the Importation of materials requisite for its production; Fulton v. Norteman, 60 W. Va. 662, 65 S. B. 668, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1196. But a board of health may forbid the use of certain materials for fertilizing purposes. If injurious to the public health; Naccari v. Rappelet, 119 La. 272, 44 South. 13, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640. FE8TA IN CAPPI8. In Old English Law. Grand holidays, on which choirs were accustomed to wear caps. Jac. L. Diet FE8TING-MAN. A bondsman; a surety; a pledge; a f rank-pledge. It was one privilege of monasteries that they should be free from feiting-men, which Cowell explains to mean not to be bound for any man’s forth- FE8TINQ-PENNY. Earnest {q. v.) given to servants when hired or retained. The same as arlea-penny, Cowell. FE8TINUM REMEDIUM (Lat a speedy remedy). A term applied to those cases where the remedy for the redress of an injury is given without any unnecessary delay. Bacon, Abr. Assise, A. The action of dower is festinum remedium, and so is that of assise. FE8TUCA. in Frankish Law. A rod or staff or (as described by other writers) a stick, on which imprecatory runs were cut, which was used as a gage or pledge of good faith by a party to a contract, or for symbolic delivery in the conveyance or quit-claim of laud, before a court of law, anterior to the introduction of written documents by the Romans. 2 Poll. & MaiU. 86, 184, 190; Maitl. Domesday Book and Beyond 323. FE8TUM (Lat). A feast, a holiday, a festival. FETTER8. A sort of Iron put on the limbs of a malefactor or a person accused of crime. When a prisoner is brought Into court to plead, he shall not be put in fetters; Co. 2d Inst 315; Co. 3d Inst. 84; 2 Hale, PI. Or. 119; Kel. 10; 1 Chitty, Cr. Law 417; 4 Bla. Com. 322; it is usual to remove them at the trial; Faire v. State, 58 Ala. 74; State v. Lewis, 19 Kan. 260, 27 Am. Rep. 113; to retain them is justifiable only where a reasonable necessity exists; 59 J. P. 393, per Bussell, C. J.; or where it is necessary to prevent an escape; 4 B. & C. 696. In commenting on these cases, it is said that it is justified only with a prisoner of notoriously bad character, or dangerous, or the offense is grave, or there is an attempt to escape; 29 Chi. L. News 88. In the first case In this country in which the old common-law doctrine was considered and enforced, the court held that to try a prisoner In shackles was to deprive him of his rights, and that a conviction, under such circumstances, would be reversed; People V. Harrington, 42 Cal. 165, 10 Am. Rep. 296, followed in State v. Krlng, 64 Mo. 591 (afl Srmlng State v. Ering, 1 Mo. App. 438). A single expression on this subject seems to be opposed to these cases. An English writer, commenting on the action of a barrister who withdrew and refused to proceed with a case because the judge ordered his client fettered during the trial, considers the removal of fetters to be a mere matter of courtesy, being designed to relieve the prisoner, so far as is practicable, from all that might enlist prejudice against him or disturb his self-possession, and that such removal cannot be considered a matter of right; 48 L. T. 890. crime, has no right to handcuff him unless It Is necessary or he has attempted to make his escape; 4 B. & C. 696. It Is not conclusive on a question of escape that the arresting ofllcer did not handcuff the prisoner; State V. Hunter, 94 N. C. 829. See Pbisoneb.