St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1883-11-09

a decision was rendered by the SUI
preme court of New Hampshire few
weeks ago, embodying principle
which has Il wide and important appli-
cation. The facts, briefly stated. are
these The Boston, Concord and Mont
real railroad and the Northern Railroad
of New Hampshire, both terminating
at Concord, were dependent on the
Concord railroad for connection to the
roads on the south which enabled them
to reach Boston with their traffic ar
rangements. Being dissatisfied with
the terms of their contracts with this
connecting link between Concord and
Nashua, the president of the two north
ern roads, with other persons whom
they secured in their interest, bought
IA majority OF the stock of the Concord
road and got themselves elected on its
board of direction, which they there
after controlled. They were then in Il
position to make their own terms with
the connecting road, as they were in
effect contracting with themselves.
They not only sacrificed the inter
ests of the other stockholders in the
Concord road by making, arrange
ments favorable to the northern roads,
but presented certain heavy claims
against that corporation, and had
them paid by their own action as con-
trolling directors of the latter. Suit
was brought by one of the minority
stockholders of the Concord road to
have the contracts made 10y its board
of directors set aside, to have the di-
rectOrs whose interests were adverse
to those of the company 10y reason of
their connection with the other com
panies removed or suspended, and
have il suitable person or persons APP
pointed to act in behalf of the Concord
road III all matters where those direct
ors were disqualified from acting on
account of their adverse interests. The
court held very positively and clearly
that these directors were diSq ualitied.
1t said that director of Il railroad
corporation stands i'll Il tiduciary rela-
ton to the corporation and Is under
the disability of trustee. He cannot
buy of himself, sell to himself, contract
with himself, or secure advantages to
himself not common to other stock
holders BrattleborO PheniX.
THE RIGHTS OF DIVORCED PERSONS TO
MARRY.
Modern humanity and modern mo-
rality has entirely OutgrOwn such shall
low social philosophy as lies at the
bottom of the theory that to refuse
divorce save for scriptural cause will
work real divorce reform. Such
severity as DEGREES separation, with no
right to marry, enforced against per
son who is not responsible for the de-
sertiOn, the cruelty, the life of outraged
domestic love and decency for which
the separation is granted, will never he
cast into our modern statutes, for the
common sense of the people is instinct
with a spirit of humanity which will
reject such injustice and hardship
under the name of reform with con-
tempt and Indignation. Everybody
knows that man may and frequently
does make a living hell Oh earth of his
home without giving any opportunity
for absolute divorce for scripturaI
cause. Shall Il woman, whose life has
been blighted, whose home has been
darkened, whose affections have been
trampled under the iron heel of a brutal
tyrant, or under the filthy feet of q
chronic drunkard, shall she, for nc
fault of her own, be refused legal leave
TO relight the shattered lamp of hel
love at clearer, pUrer, friendliel
flame, except she can prove adultery
against her domestic brute and chronic
llill-ioy Suppose case that is very
common i'll New England Suppose i
man, year or two after marriage
deserts his wife and leaves her in pen
ury and solitude to support her chill
H. Ia,. Il
for several years, sending her neither
money nor message OF promise or hope
suppose that wOman's brave struggle
to care for her children wins her the
admiration of some decent man, who
loves her well enough to carry hel
burden the rest of his days, would it be
humane for the law to grant such a
woman only a legal separation without
right to marry again = Rutland
Herald.