The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-01-27
THE SUPREME COURT.
Railway Companies Not Liable for Injuries
to PnstofFice EmnlOYes.


to Postoffice Employees.
WASHINGTON, JAN 26.--In the Supreme
Coart, to day, decision was rendered in the
municipal bond case of the town of Santa Anna,
plaintiff in error against Augustus Frank appeal
from the United States Circuit Court for the
Southern district of Illinois This was a suit
upon certain bonds and coupons issued by the
town of Santa Anna under authority of "an act
TO amend the articles of association of the DAN
vile, Urbana, Bloomington 81 Pekin Railroad
Company, and to extend its powers and confer a
charter upon the same" In the court below
jury was waived and judgment rendered in favor
of bondholder Frank. This court holds that as
there is no special finding of facts, the general
finding of issues for the plaintiff is not open to
review by this court. Judgment affirmed.
decision was also rendered in the patent
case of Willabald Voss. appellant, against Chas.
]. Fisher appeal from the United States Circuit
Court for the Western district of Michigan.
This was suit brought by Fisher against Voss
to restrain an alleged infringement Of patent
granted on May a, 1871 on an improved neck
pad for horses This court holds that the evil
dence is conclusive to show that such pad was
made sold and used by many persons years
Is therefore void for want Of novelty i'll the
alleged invention. The decree of the Circuit
Court is reversed and the case remanded with
directions to dismiss the BILL
A decision was also rendered in the case of
Anna NJ. Price ct al. against the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company; in error to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania. This was a suit brought
by Mrs Price TO recover damages from the rail
road company for the accidental death of her
husband who was in the employ of the United
States Postof6ce Department, and was killed in
a collision between two trains. The only
Questisa- presented by the case here
is whether the deceased, by virtue of his en-
ployment in the service of the United States,
. was passenger within the meaning of the
first section of the act of the Pennsylvania Leg
islature of April 8, 1884 This court holds that
person carried free with mail matter is no
more passenger because he is in charge Of
mail, or because no compensation is made for
his transportation. than he would be if he had
no such charge The fact that he is in the en-
ployment of the United States, and the railroad
company is bound by its contract with the
United States to carry him. does not affect the
question 1t would be just the same if the
company had contracted with any other person
who had charge of freight on train to carry
him without additional compensation. The
statutes Of the United States which
authorize this employment and direct
this service do not, therefore. make the
person engaged a passenger or deprive
him of that character in constituting the Penusyl-
Yanla statute nor do they give the person en-
ployed any right as against the railroad company
which would not belong to any other person in
similar employment by others than the United
States. The court is. therefore, of opinion that
DO question of federal authority was involved in
the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsyl-
vania, and the writ of error is dismissed.
decision was also rendered in the case known
as the Chinese wife case--Cheong All Moy, plain
tiff in error, against the United States; in error
to the United States Circuit Court for the dis
trict of California. Cheong All Moy was
Chinese woman who, upon arriving in San Fran
cisco from China, was not permitted to land by
reason of the act of Congress of May g. 1882. and
amendatory of the act of 1874. Upon hearing in
the United States Circuit Court it was ordered
that she be returned to China Pend
ing the execution of this order, and while
she in the custody of marshal,
her counsel applied to the court for her release,
offering to give bail for her appearance when
wanted The judges of the Circuit Court were
divided in opinion on this question of bail, and
it was so certified to this court. In the mean
time the woman was put board an outgoing
steamer in accordance with previous order of
the Circuit Court and sent back to China. In
view of this state of facts. this court declines to
consider the question of bail, since even if the
woman were permitted to give bail, it would be
no use to her in China. and this court does not
Sit here to decide questions arising in which
no longer exist III regard to rights it cannot en-
force. The writ is dismissed.