dent shall be filled by appointment by the Council, and that such appointee shall hold his office until the next annual election thereafter. Section 2730 provides that in the absence or disability of the President, the President pro tem of the Council shall perform the duties of the President. Therefore if the office of President has been vacated by reason of his giving up his residence in your Village, then it is the duty of the Council to appoint some one to hold the office of President until the next annual election, but in case his absence was merely temporary, then it would be the duty of the President pro tem to perform his duties. Respectfully yours, R-pi-O GRANT FELLOWS, CONVICTS. GOOD TIME. The serving of two prior sentences at Jackson Prison would bar "good time" in subsequent term at Marquette. July 14, 1914. Hon. James Russell, Warden, State House of Correction and Branch Prison, Marquette, Michigan: In re Moses Stone, No. 2025. My Dear Mr. Russell-I have before me yours of recent date in which you state that the above named prisoner was sentenced to your institution under the indeterminate sentence law from Wayne County on conviction for larceny of property on the 17th of June, 1910; that his minimum sentence was two years and six months; that the recommendation of the court was that he be held for the full maximum term of five years; that said Stone before sentence had served two terms in the Jackson Prison and one in the Ionia Prison in this State and that he also served a term in the Detroit House of Correction, one in the Ohio Penitentiary at Columbus, Ohio and one at Joliet, Ill. You desire to know whether said Stone would be entitled to "good time" on his maximum sentence under the indeterminate sentence law. The so-called indeterminate sentence law does not provide for "good time." Section 2112 of the Compiled Laws of 1897 provides that the warden shall cause a record to be kept of each and all infractions of the rules of discipline with the names of the persons so offending and the date and character of each offense which record shall be placed before the Board at each regular meeting thereof, and every convict who shall have no infractions of the prison rules or laws of the State recorded against him shall be entitled to a reduction from his sentence as further provided in said section. It is further provided by said section that— "A convict who shall be serving a second term in said prison shall be allowed for the several periods in order named above, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight days as "good time" and no more. If any convict has already served a second term in said prison he shall be entitled to no "good time" but shall be held until the full completion of his sentence." The Marquette Prison being a branch of the State Prison at Jackson, Michigan, would be considered as a part of the State Prison for the State of Michigan and service of two sentences in the Jackson Prison would bar "good time" as provided by Section 2112. Very respectfully, G-v-O PRISONERS. There is no authority under Section 2101 C. L. 1897 to transfer a prisoner from the Detroit House of Correction to the Michigan State Prison before the expiration of his term. July 14, 1914. Mr. E. C. Austin, Sec'y. Board of Pardons, Lansing, Michigan: Dear Sir-The communication from Bernard Jacob, Superintendent of the Detroit House of Correction, which you forwarded has been considered and you are advised as follows: As I understand the question, one Vanderbilt Banks was sentenced to the Detroit House of Correction for a term of years for larceny and subsequent to the conviction of larceny, he was tried for an offense committed in the Detroit House of Correction and sentenced to a term in Jackson prison, the second sentence to begin on the completion of his first sentence. It is desired to transfer Banks from the Detroit House of Correction to the Michigan State Prison before the expiration of his first sentence and thus compel him to serve the remainder of his first sentence in the State prison. The question therefore arises as to the authority to transfer this man from the Detroit House of Correction to the Michigan State Prison under Section 2107 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. This section gives the Advisory Board in the Matter of Pardons authority to recommend to the Governor from time to time the transfer of prisoners from one prison to another under certain conditions. Former Attorney General, Hon. Franz C. Kuhn, in an opinion rendered September 28th, 1911 to Warden Simpson, held that Section 2107 referred only to the Michigan State Prison at Jackson, the Marquette Prison and the Ionia Reformatory, and did not include other institutions. (Attorney General's Report for 1912, P. 123). Attention is now called to Section 2180 Compiled Laws of 1897 which provides as follows: "All laws now in force, applicable to persons confined in the state prison, shall be and are hereby made applicable to all persons who are, or hereafter shall be confined in said house of correction, who have been transferred to said house from the state prison, or who shall be sentenced to confinement in said house, on conviction of any offense punishable by confinement in the state prison." On examination of the question I do not think the above section is applicable. The sentencing of a prisoner to the Detroit House of Correction rather than to the penitentiary is a matter that addresses itself to the discretion of the trial court, especially where it refers to male offenders, and such a sentence is always regarded as a leniency, while on the other hand a sentence to State's prison is regarded as a greater severity and is unquestionably so treated in the various statutes prescribing punishment for crimes. For ordinary purposes the Detroit House of Correction is looked upon by the courts as an institution intermediary between the county jails and the State prison. To transfer a prisoner from the Detroit House of Correction to the State Prison would therefore be increasing his punishment and such is not the object of Section 2107 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. I am therefore of the opinion that the rule made by Attorney General Kuhn should stand and you are so advised. P-pi-O Respectfully yours, PHYSICIANS. PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS. A physician employed at any of the State Hospitals for the insane may fill out an insurance certificate stating the cause of death of the assured when requested so to do by the representatives of the deceased, but not when requested by the Insurance Company. (2) Medical Superintendents of Hospitals may convey to the Bureau of U. S. Pensions the contents of records of State Institutions as to the cause of death or insanity of pensioner of U. S. Government. July 14, 1914. Dr. A. I. Noble, Medical Supt. Kalamazoo State Hospital, Kalamazoo, Michigan: Dear Sir-Sometime ago you submitted to this Department a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the joint Board of Trustees of the State Hospitals of Michigan, held at Ionia on the 15th day of January, 1914, and called specific attention to certain action of the Board recorded on pages fourteen and fifteen thereof in which you were instructed to procure an opinion from this Department as to the right of officials of the State Hospitals to furnish certain data concerning the physical condition of patients committed to the Hospitals for treatment. The first inquiry concerns the question of whether a physician in one of these institutions, and by reason of his connection with such institution is in possession of certain knowledge obtained while professionally treating a patient in such institution, when called upon to fill out insurance certificates detailing the cause of the death of the assured should state in such certificate matters relating to the cause of death, which knowledge and information was obtained by such physician in the treatment of such patient in one of the State institutions. Your second inquiry is whether a Medical Superintendent of a State Hospital should advise upon request the Bureau of United States Pensions as to what is shown by the records of the Institution as to the cause of a soldier's death at the Hospital, and as to the cause of such patient's insanity. Replying to the same would say that if the representatives of a deceased person apply for the certificate it would be proper for the Institution to furnish the same as the application for such certificate by the representatives of the deceased would be regarded as a waiver of the privilege created by the statute. It might be wise in such case to require that such request be made in writing in order that your files may show that such request was made. If a request should be made by the insurance company you would not be authorized in furnishing such certificate because the insurance company is not the representative of the deceased and is not authorized to waive the provisions of the statute creating the privilege. Therefore, upon your first inquiry, you are advised that you would be authorized to furnish such certificate to the representatives of the deceased, but would not be authorized in furnishing the same to the insurance company. As to your second inquiry, I am of the opinion that the Bureau of United States Pensions being a Department of the Federal Government would be entitled to consideration in request made to a Medical Superintendent of one of the State Hospitals as to the cause of death or insanity of a pensioner of the United States Government, and that such Medical Superintendent should be governed by his sound discretion as to the extent to which the report should go. By that I mean that the time of the Medical Superintendent should not be taken in going into minute details, but that as a general, proposition the information requested by the Federal Government of the State Government should be furnished. Trusting that these suggestions may be of service to you and to the member of the joint Board of Trustees, I am, F-pi-O Respectfully yours, HIGHWAY LAW. The expense incurred for putting in a new culvert upon a public highway should be charged to the highway improvement fund and not the road repair fund. Hon. Homer E. Wellman, Mancelona, Michigan: July 14, 1914. Dear Sir-Yours of recent date enclosing diagram of road situation in Mancelona Township, received and contents noted. I apprehend from your communication that owing to certain grades in the highway water is caused to collect on adjoining lands, and particularly on a cemetery adjacent to the highway; that the outlet for such water is by means of a small culvert crossing the east and west highway, and that such culvert is too small to carry off the surplus water. You ask whether the putting in of a larger culvert would be considered as repair or improvement, and whether it would be incumbent upon the Township to put in such a culvert as will properly handle the water. In reply, highway improvement and road repair funds are only to be used for improvements and repair to highways and bridges and from your communication I do not apprehend that the surplus water is causing any injury to the highway. If, however, a change has been made by the Township in the highway and because of such change water formerly taken care of by a road culvert has been increased to such an extent that the present road culvert is not sufficient to permit such water to pass, then, I am inclined to the opinion that the Township authorities would have the right to use highway improvement funds in the construction of a new culvert. I think the highway improvement funds rather than road repair funds should be used for the reason that such change would be considered in the nature of a permanent improvement. If on the other hand the surplus water has not been caused by the reason of a change in the public highway, then the responsibility of providing proper and sufficient drainage in the cemetery would be upon that Corporation owning the cemetery, namely: the Village. Respectfully yours, GRANT FELLOWS, Attorney General. Cr-pi-O RAILROAD LAW. It is not within the province of the Railroad Commission to compel compliance with contracts entered into between Municipalities and Railroad Companies with respect to railroad bridges unless such bridges are unsafe or unsatisfactory for the handling of railroad traffic. Michigan Railroad Commission, Lansing, Michigan: Attention Mr. Cunningham. July 14, 1914. Gentlemen-You have referred to this Department certain files with reference to a bridge on the line of the Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co., located two and one-half miles East of Lawton. From the files submitted it appears that a franchise was granted said Railway Company by the Township of Antwerp, and that by virtue thereof permission and authority was given the Railway Company to use and operate its railway over certain highways in the said Township; that a contract was entered into between the railway company and the Township under the terms of which a certain over-head crossing or bridge was to be constructed and maintained at what is known as the Kiefer crossing. It further appears from the files that this contract agreement has never been carried out; that the crossing constructed by said Company was not such as was called for in the contract and particularly that the overhead clearance is far short from that agreed upon between the railway company and the Township. It further appears that complaint has from time to time been made by the Township authorities to your Commission and by your Commission to the Railroad Company, and that said Company for a considerable period of time has failed and neglected to take any action with respect thereto. It further appears from the communication that the bridge is entirely safe and satisfactory from the standpoint of the Railroad traffic, and that the only cause for complaint is that it does not meet the requirements of those persons traveling over the public highway. You have requested the opinion of this Department as to |