St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-11-09

ers Who Have Failed to ray
subscriptions - Assault Case
on Trial-Dog Suit-Grind Of
the Courts-General News of
ST. Paul.
Judge Collins, of the supreme court.
in decision handed down yesterday,
decided that Chapter II, General Laws
of 1891, prohibiting the sale of any inn
tation of butter, unless it shall be col
Ored bright pink, is valid as legltl-
mate exercise of the police powers of
the state, reversing the order OF the
lower court in Duluth. where the case
was tried. The court further states that
the sale of this imitation is INSIDE
meanor, subject to penalty. which Is
fine OF $50 for the first otfenSe and 500
for the second.
The dairy commission has been max
large seizures of oleomargarine all over
the state lately which has been sold
under order of the court, for some pur-
pose other than use as butter, and tie
proceeds turned into the state treasury.
The decision OF the court in the case,
which was to test the legality Of these
seizures, has been awaited by the COM
mission, and as a result it is probable
that a number of other cases will be
settled. The syllabus in the case is as
follows:
In the matter of Fred Weideman on habeas
corpus: FREQ Weideman. respondent. VS.,
State of Minnesota, appellant. Order re
versed. COLLINS, d.
l. The provisions of General Laws
1891, chapter II, IAN act relating to the
sale OF imitation butter" are valid as
legitimate exercise of the police powers
OF the state.
.. The otfenSe prohibited in section l
of said chapter II is misdemeanor, and
the penalty therein specified is to- be
recovered in accordance with the pro-
visions of General Statutes 1883, chap
ter rs section 10, by criminal prosecu-
ton in a court of competent JuIlSdlc-
ton.
HORNSBY CASE.
Another case Of Importance Is that O
Martins suit against the notarial bond
of a. II. Hornsby. for damages arising
from the fraud of the latter. The SUI
preme court suStainS the lower court as
follows:
Benjamin F. Martin. appellant, VS.. A. H.
Hornsby, defendant Uri l.. Lamprey ct al,
respondents. Order affirmed.
COLLINS. j.
l. A BOND purporting TO be the Joint
and several Obligation OF one who is
about to be commissioned as notary
public, as principal, and of others as
SuretieS, but which has been executed
by the shreties only, does not upon its
face show any contract obligation on
the part of sucn sureties.
2. Upon an examination of the evil
dence presented upon the trial of this
case it is held that said suretles had not
hy their conduct subjected themselves
TO liability upon the instrument nor be-
come eStOpped from questioning its in
validity because unfinished and incom-
plete.
OTHER DECISIONS.
City Power Company. respondent, VS.. Fergus
Fails Water Company, appellant. Order
reversed. COLLINS, j.
/. Certain provisions in a lease of
water power and contract to furnish
water construed.
g 1t is no defense to tenants claim
that his rights under a lease have been
invaded and infringed upon TO say that
the Invasion and Infringement were the
acts OF another tenant, when they. have
been performed with landlords consent
and active concurrence.
James Fitzpatrick, appellant, VS.. Erick Han
son, respondent. Order affirmed.
COLLINS, j.
1. AS against landlord who. with
the consent of the tenant, has cancelled
a lease held by the latter to carry Oh
farm upon shares" and has in good
FAITH purchased and paid for ali rights
or interests which the tenant may have
had i'll a crop of grain then growing or
to be grown that season upon the prem
lSeS, 1t is incumbent upon one who
claims title to share of such grain I'M
Qer and by virtue Of Il chattel mortgage
executed and delivered by the tenant
before the seed was soWn from which
such grain was raised to show that such
said mortgage was executed in good
faith and not for the purpose of de-
frauding creditors.
>. One who takes mortgage upon
al undivided share of crop growing
on a farm of third person, relying
upon and in the belief that a secret
agreement, made for the purpose of de-
fraudlng the mOrtgagOr'S creditors, eX-
lists between said third party and such
moItgagor, to the effect that the
latter, apparently a laborer upon the
farm OF the former, is, in fact, tenant
culhVatlng the farm upon shares, can
not claim the benefit of such secret and
fraudulent agreement.
s. Held, that such third party was
not estopped from asserting title to the
entire crop of grain by reason of certain
statements alleged to have been made
by him to the plaintiff mortgage.
Charles Gibson, respondent VS.. Minneapolis
st. Paul d Sault Ste. Marie Railway Com.