Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1892-09-01
ODD SIDES OF LAW.
Two Cases Retried-The Infant Husband
and His Wages.

anu Ills wages.
The Texas Court of Appeals has re-
Gently decided that room assigned to
guest in hotel is not a public place,
and therefore that it is not a crime
against the laws of that state for per-
son to be intoxicated in such a room,
inasmuch as the statute is only designed
to punish drunkenness in public places.
A curious libel suit has lately been
decided in Vermont, growing out of a
letter addressed to 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
| reel pient of the letter brought suit
for libel against the sender. The de-
Tense was that the contents of the letter
were made public by the act of the
plaintiff herself in showing the letter to
her husband or allowing him to read it,
and hence, as the publication was her
own act, she was not entitled to re-
cover. This view has been sustained
by the Supreme Court of the state.
A conveyance of land executed by
woman was recently attacked in the
courts of Iowa on the ground that the
lady who signed the deed was suffering
under mental incapacity at the time OF
its execution, and as evidence of such
incapacity it was proved that she be-
lieved in what are called spiritual mani
festaton5. and insisted that by means Of
these manifestations she carried on COM
munication with her deceased friends
in the spirit world. The supreme
court of Iowa has held very sensibly
that this evidence did not necessarily
show that q believer in spiritualism was
incompetent to convey away her land.
Her sp1ritualistic notions might be con-
sidered in connection with the other
facts and circumstances OF the case as
bearing upon her mental condition. but
of themselves they did not constitute a
sufficient basis for declaring her incapa-
BILE of making deed. There have been
judges Of recognized ability who were
well-known believers in spirltuallsm;
as, for example, the late John w. 3D.
monds, whose judicial capacity was new
er questioned on that account.
The question whether a man under
81 wears of age could lawfully
withhold his wages from his father and
use them for the support Of his wife re-
Gently came before the supreme Judicial
court of Massachusetts. The son had
married without the consent of his
father. Both the father and the wife
claimed to be in actual need of the
Young mans wages for their support.
The law is we'll settled that where
minor son marries with the consent OF
his father, that consent emanclpates the
son and permits him to apply his wages
to the support of his wife, but it was
argued that such marriage withoutth
consent OF the father did not have the
same effect. The Massachusetts supreme
court, however, entertained q different
opinion on this point and declared that
an infant husband is entitled to his own
wages so far as they are necessary for
his own support and that of his wife and
children, even if he marries without his
fathers consent. The court also lntlm-
ated. put did not decide, that IN such
cases the husband would be entitled to
all his earnings, even ii more than sum
cient for the support of himself and his
family.
ANY person who has had occasion
critically to eXamin the law reports OF
the several states rs they are puoiisneo
will be surprised, we think, at the mar
monv and uniformity In the rulings %
the courts rather than at the diversity
OF the views judicia!ly expressed. Inc
certainty of the law as administered In
forty-four different states under
fortv-tour different judicial systems
ia much mere remarkable than
the uncertainty. But considerable
diversity OF opinion is undouot-
edly som etimes developed, Thus we
find in the June number of the Amer-
can Digest, upon the same page, REFER
ences to two decisions, one IN Georgia
and another in Missouri, when II IS
rather difficult to reconcile with one an
other. In the Georgia case, which was a
criminal prosecution, the council for the
state in his argument to the jury told
them that they knew the defendant
as we'll as he did, and that one OF the
defendants witnesses In testliylng had
Lied from stem to stern" THIS tree
dom of language was held not to be sui
ficient ground for new trial. In tns
Missouri case new trial was grante9!
because the prosecuting attorney .oiu
i lne Jury sq 'nT Dutchmen.'
,,,.E MIN