The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1884-05-17

AEase NsRs'ss w rnl3 uetiSItnss
c0nRl'ss 4, ssE o. A.. I. lAaes


EfE4NENfH7H E48NIa
emo 81 a ilraa Uf 8nhl9sn lii fHrBftusB
and drHpsEies pllA upon q pisce o. ',Is@
4nitssfa placed un lho pavement. fAkun
back from a. 81. who could nos bn4
iov III 10 b sold Nj haFNnim Xxi 8
suit for libel upon tins two aue4-
lions we're Ia tillad aaalmss tha dafensis
ants, tise 4 u 1 That $40 GEM could
deierfMlnt whether 81 not the blao&fs!
sras 4 libel YhAA every fKAfiiH1F II
the firm was Liable. lhopNh niia onls nek
up lhe HheleNs Hial1efs ai1d without 3hH
knQNieIge. direction OK consent q The
Others. Ia this c1xo. VunaIin9 VII
knloka. booker. the Supreme Co0rl q
Minnesola on appeal. reversed 1h8
court below The Chief Justice. en-.
lillian. IN tbs on, s0lA. What
meaning, whether Is liflons 81 not h.
lnrous 90 AhM nlAinlIiis these words
would convey 10 ordinary men who foad
ihem Without n knOtel6sl3a of tho l9anss
action IL which they refereed. Wis
fQr the jury 10 determine, ii view q
tho circumstances NN1Nr which they
are exposed to The pablo pern ii.
and whether they afe hhUl0sis III nDt.
ought 70 have been left 10 The ialrY Is
sny "A per&0n uan n01 hn hold llA%
bic for 3 libel published BY anoih s. un
loss no has authorl lid him 10 ssanlkN tha
publication Yhesa il no1hInn Ii tbs
nature Of che bnslnea ol Tia iilm.s.
that d deailng ID i,fnltGre aud dsnbol
lee from Which authority 10 one pnNEs
ner OF 20 q servant. 10 elnluIlonslV
publish d libel CAN be implied. The
case u different from thNt III pArtnsfA
ship whose business n puDlishin0 o.
selling eltfer books BIZ newsnnfaps.
whore each partner l. 0upposed to have
authority 10 publish 0r H6lls nnd to 49,
,efmlne what shall Sc publlahed Of sold.
and also fsnm thnt Of Tho nocuesarV cor.
rospondenee Of The firm, whore each
partner II presumed 10 he anshnfl4od
10 on6uet Il And Is determine on It's
nnhatnnca and TERMS
STATUTE on LIMITATIONS 10 NOTE MADE
ny ANuTHnn arArV
The Supreme Court az Maine. III Tie
ense If Thompson ~ Road fmkareln
IA action waE Brought III fS82 on 4
pfoml sorry note given lg defendant ia
Now York II 1850 and payable III llsat
State iot money Ienf; until 1875 lho
plalntla and defendant fen flad contIh.
uonsly In Nav York, md defendant has
lived there elnoes The motto Wns barred
III SIX years BY the New YORK. sfafnfo.
and the defense IL the stAttltA liz ifniiias
lions was rolled upon). heidi eIhe
statute 0f limitation IL no bar lO al Nc
ton brought III this state o. prom.
leaory note made and parable "a an=
other tate although tie paffIcs con-
tlnued 10 reside there until saw action
thereon was bnrlod w tie statute u
that State. Il is wish settled 81 tbs
grent current 81 authority fhah. IL Ills
statute Of llmifat Qua operates MANLY
on the remedy, It IL consequently local
IN us operation, and thD law gf the
place where the remedy IA sought. mud
moi thnt cf the place 0f contract. ritst
control. sumn 81 lhn Stnhen hevo stat
usory provisions allowing Che fntefs
position OF the statute bar 81 another
State where the dosendant haa resided
tbs requisite period But tho eiatnsos
d this State contain no provision 81
that character.
vRAup or AoENr LIABILITY on FRfhs
clPAL.
When iii agent, acting within the
scope Of his authority, commits fraud.
the fact that his principal u Ignorant
Of the fraud, did not receive amy profit
therefrom and never ratified II. does not
relieve him from liability for the fraud.
10 held by the Supreme Court EOm-
ms lion Of Chic, IN the appeal IL Woplo
vs.. Cincinnati, Hamilton d Dayton
Railway, it appeRrlnR thnt i railroad
agent by adding 10 tho weight Of
goods, he'd defrapdod tho shipper IL
~608 30, TOT which fraud Judgment WIS
recovered against him, hnt no part If
it~wae paid. An action was then
brought against che railroad ccnpauv
TO recover this sum 20 ffaudulentIy
tgKen BY ITS agent while acting withEn
the scope Of Ills agency. The company
made three defensoa II That the fraud
bad not been committed within four
yeArs, and therefore The section was
barred. 2. That here was Judgment
In full force against the agent f0r tho
sum claimed. 5. That the company
were entirely ignorant Of tho fraud aud
had never received any Of the excess
sive charges.
TIKADE~sfARK.
The objestof o trademark Is 10 indI-
cate, by its meaning or association. tho
origin or ownership Of the artlcsa. and
wlen the right to its use Is transferred
to Others either by the act OF the orig
inal manufacturer Or by operation Of
Law, the fact OF the transfer must be
sta.ed III connection With lts use. other
wise g deception win be practlced upon
the public, and the very fraud accom-
plished 10 prevent which courts st
equity interfere 70 protect the excln-
siVe right Of the manufacturer. Mary
land Court Of Appeals slegert W.. Alb
bolt.
TITLE TRANSFERRED.
The Supreme Court Of Nebraska. il
the case Of Kuhus w. Ennkes, decided
recently, held that where note pay
able to order was Endorsed BY tbs
payee and with e mortgage securing II
delivered to the indorsee, that The title
to the mortgage was thereby trans
lefred.
PARTNERSHIP FUNDS.
Supreme Court Of New Hampshire:
Real estate purchased with partnership
funds for the use Of the partnership,
and used in the partnership business,
is, 10 equity, regarded as assets Of the
partnership. and will be applied to tho
liquidation OF partnership fn preference