Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1892-08-31
ODD SIDES OF LAW.

Two Gases Retried-The Infant Hus baud
and His Wages.
The Texas Court of Appeals has re-
Gently decided that a room assigned to
guest in a hotel is not public place,
and therefore that it is not a crime
against the laws of that state for per-
son to be intoxicated in such room,
.nasmuch as the statute is only designed
10 punish drunkenness in public places
A curious libel suit has lately been
decided in Vermont, growing out OF q
letter addressed to a woman. When
the letter came to the post-office she
opened the letter herself, and she
and her husband read it together.
The contents were defamatory, and the
| recipient of the letter brought a suit
Tor libel against the sender. The de-
ense was that the contents of the letter
we're made public by the act of the
| plaintiff herself in showing the letter to
| Aer husband or allowing him to read it,
snd hence, as the publication was her
oWn act, she was not entitled to re-
tover. This view has been sustained
by the Supreme Court of the state.
A conveyance of land executed by a
NOudA WIS I0C0Hlly dlldCh0u III SHo
courts Of Iowa on the ground that the
lady who signed the deed was suffering
Under mental incapacity at the time of
is execution, and as evidence of such
ncapacity it was proved that she be-
Ieved in what are called spiritual mani
nstationJ. and insisted that by means of
these manifestations she carried on COM
nunication with her deceased friends
n the spirit world. The supreme
court of Iowa has held very sensibly
| that this evidence did not necessarily
show that believer in spiritualism was
Incompetent to convey away her land.
Her spIrltualistic notions might be con-
Sidered in connection with the other
facts and circumstances of the case as
| bearing upon her mental condition, but
| # themselves they did not constitute a
ufficient basis for declaring her incapa-
| lie of making deed. There have been
! judges Of recognized ability who were
ve!l-known believers in spiritualism
s, for example, the late John w. Ed
nonds, whose judicial capacity was new
G questioned on that account.
The question whether a man under
4 years of age could lawfully
withhold his wages from his father and
Use them for the support of his wife re-
| emily came before the supreme judicial
curt of Massachusetts. The son had
married without the consent of his
| hther. Both the father and the wife
| damned to be in actual need of the
young mans wages for their support.
| The law is we'll settled that where a
| minor son marries with the consent of
! lis father, that consent emancipates the
on and permits him to apply his wages
b the support of his wife, but it was
| 4 Ia l. l. Al.
consent Of the father did not have the
anne effect. The Massachusetts supreme
curt, however, entertained different
opinion on this point and declared that
Al infant husband is entitled to his own
wages so far as they are necessary for
lis own support and that Of his wife and
children, even if he marries without his
hther's consent. The court also intim-
ded, put did not decide, that in such
ases the husband would be entitled to
dl his earnings, even if more than suffi-
dent for the support of himself and his
amily.
Any person VINO has had occasion
critically TO examln the law reports of
| he several states as they are published
viii be surprised, we think, at the har-
| nonv and uniformity in the rulings Of
The courts rather than at the diversity
u VIC VIEWS JuulCldily 0N pToSS0O. Lie
certainty Of the law as administered in
forty-four different states under
forty-tour different judicial systems
lis much mere remarkable than
Ithe uncertainty. But considerable
diversity of opinion is undoubt-
Iedly sometimes developed. Thus we
find in the June number Of the Ameri-
Ican Digest, upon the same page, refer
fences to two decisions, one in Georgia
land another in Missouri, which it is
rather difficult to reconcile with one an
other. In the Georgia case, which was a
terminal prosecution, the council FOR the
state in his argument to the jury told
them that they knew the defendant
IS we'll as he did, and that one of the
Cefendant's witnesses in testifyIng had
lied from stem to stern" This free
com of language was held not to be suf-
fcient ground for a new trial. In the
Missouri case new trial was granted
because the prosecuting attorney told
the jury the defendant was ga sugar
bafed, squirrel-headed Dutchmen. y