The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1878-10-20
'ASES FROM THE LATEST Law REPORTS.

4 |
~ ~ that an applicant for naturalization. bef
~ no can be admitted to citizenship, eli
= snow that he has behaved as a man of o,
moral character during his residence
% the country. Upon an application ml
- 70 1.-THE United States Circuit Court
= oregon (held by Judge Deadly, the Distr
= Cuoge) this summer, it appeared that
y the other requirements of the statnte h
q oeen complied with, but some doubt arc
= upon this subject of good moral charact
. Lt was proved that, 1876, the applicant b
oeen duly convicted of perjury in
oregon court, and had been therein,
een'ehcea ECU 70 hve years' imprisonment
produced an unqualified pardon by tl
governor OF Oregon, upon which he w
released after an incarceration of fiftat
months, aud which was granted expressj
because of donbts as to his guilt. Th
PARDON, he contended, made his crime 6
shough IL never was, and forbade the Coul
from regarding the Judgment of convictio
| as evidence Of misbehavior. There is Ger
tainiy strong authority in the reports fo
this view, but the District Judpe refnse
to adopt it. Mr.. Justice Field, for examnIe
deiiVering the opinion of the Suprem
court In IN ex parte Garland a Wallace
hep., ooo, said: "a pardon reaches boti
and the guilt of the offender; and when
the pardon is full, it releases the pupish
ment and blots out of existence the guilt
80 th at In the eyes of the law the offsndeI
ls as innocent as if he bad never com mitted
the offence." Judge Deady held, however.
that, Notwithstanding this language, the
he denied the application to be admitted to
citizenship. The correctness of his decis-
lon seems to us open to very grave doubt.
1t sometimes happen that a law ia ap-
piled to cases very different from those
"hich its trainers had in view. A good
aluseraeion OF this is reported frem Ten
'eseee. An act Of the Legislature, passed
't the session of 1869 20, provided that if
my person or persons, disguised or in
mask, by day or by night, should enter
pom the premises of another, it should ne
onsldered prima facie evidence that his
!, their intention was to commit felony.
MS statute was vowedly enacted to re.
ION in the State but the Supreme Conrt |
ss recently felt obliged to hold that it's
we're penalties could properly be imposed
pom person who had gone upon the
promises in Disguise in order
steal chickens therefrom. Thus the
'ayy punishment primarily designed for
9 ho htux Kan ultimately falls upon
lcken thieves.
10 the Sheritf's Court at Preeton in Ian.
shire, some weeks ago, farm hand sued
FARMER Tor harboring his, the plaintiffs |
TO- She was the sister of the defendant.
u hao ned to him for brotherly protection =
I'M the repeated assaults and murderous :
'eats OF her husband There are strong
rIsons to afford married women sheItaS
d protection under such circumstances.
tue right ls one which must often he
ngerous to exercise, though It's recogpi
n q. would seem to be demanded from Il
tiVes OF humanity. 1t has been clearly IL
'ognl5ed by the Court ofAppeals in this
tie (Barnes agt. Allen, Abbott's O.. of
P. Decisions. III.), with the innortant CT
ton, however, that the person receiving p
WE must be careful not to step into ct
held of undue ibflaence and control. be
ips1 the IaWful rights and claims of the th
oand. The Preston farmer appears Co isi
o had perfect defence upon both the in
q ana the law, bat the report says that pc
let the case go by defanlt to cave ex- hil
ee, and IN this he was prudent. for the -
dlct againet him was tor OILY ore far
lg damsges. -
judgment against railway superin-
lent, IN an action for assault and bat
:, mas been reversed by the Supreme
ri OF Wisconsin, because the plaintiffs A.
0sei, IN MS argument to the jury, as
GU ia|'S 10 nave oeen proved CONCERN
which no evidence had been taken. and
appealed to prejudices foreign to any
s In proof. There was no testimony
tever concerning the ability of the
ndant to pay what are called punitive +
xemplary damages, yet the counsel for oY
pialntlH endeavored to supply this Sta
{, by arguing that as the defendant the
in the employ of great corporation, BY
that corporation was wealthy and wh'
erful, be was therefore able to pay P
Judgment that might be obtained F
nst him: Proper exceptions were
q, and the Supreme Court says that lei
gh appears on the record to show not m
that the learned counsel commented M
Icts not in evidence, but that in effect, NA
gh not witness, he testified to facts
elf. In reaching the conclusion that
ought on this ground to be SOY
'sed, Chief Justice Ryan truly re- r,
9: "Doubtleesithe Circuit Court can, -
did in this case, charge the jury to