The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1894-10-10
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Judges Are not to Refuse Liquor Licenses
Without a Cause

.
Supreme Court, i'm session in Pittsburg,
handed down an opinion in the appeal of
BARLEY Kelminiski from the refusal of
the court of Northumberland county to
grant him a retail liquor license. kei-
miniski's application was in due form
and il was supported by the petition of
eighty-fiye representative citizens of his
district certifying TO the necessity of the
place and fitness of the applicant. There
was no opposition to the granting of the
license, and the proof was altogether in
favor of it, The Northumberland judge
thought his discretion i'm relation to the
granting of wholesale license was not
the same as in an application for retail
license In other words. he was of the
opinion that the latter might be arbitrar-
lily refused. Justice McCollum decided
that there is no warrant in the law for
such distinction as this, and upon the
facts the license should have been grant
ed. The order refusing license was ac-
cordingly reversed.
LEFT To THE LEGISLATURE.
Justice Dean reversed the decree of the
quarter sessions court of Luzerne county
in the matter of the petition of the Le-
high Valley coal company to make roads
in Plains township. The coal company
presented a petition to the court for the
right to make and repair roads, under the
act of June Il, 1898, enabling the tax-pay-
ers of townships and road districts to
contract for making at their own expense
the roads, and paying salaries of township
and road district officers, and thereby
preventing the levying and collecting of
real tax thereon.
The supervisors filed demurrer to the
petition on the goound that the act was
unconstitutional. Ii was argued that this
law would be productive of local results,
and therefore is a local law. That is, that
some townships would take advantage of
its provisions, while others would work
under the old system. Ii is urged also
that the law is unwise and cannot result
in the improvement of public roads
Even if this is so the court holds that the
legislature and not the supreme court
must repeal it. The constitutionality of
this act does not seem TO be even doubted.
FAMOUS CASE
The case of Mrs. Annie Enders against
VIM. J. and Annie Elizabeth Enders, eX-
ecutOrs Of the late VIM. Enders, has been
the talk of the lawyers since the decision
of the Supreme Court in favor of the
plaintiff Counsel for the defendants have
4 IL L urf for a.
re-argument of the case and if this mo-
ton Is denied an appeal will be taken
About 1865 Annie Enders, the plaintiff,
was married to Emanuel Enders, a son of
VIM. Enders, and two years after their
marriage a son, VIM. J. Enders, one of
the defendants, was born to them. At
that time they lived at Cornwall, Dauph-
in county. Two years after the birth of
the son the wife left her husband on ac-
count of alleged i'll treatment and failure
to support her and with her child took up
her home with her father in Berks coun-
ty. Some months later the father of her
husband called To see her. Her boy was
his only grandson and he was desirous
that he should have a better education
than his mother could afford him. The
subject of the boys future was discussed
between her and both grandfathers and
other members of the wife's family at
this visit Grandfather Enders proposed
TO her if she would permit him TO take
her son and educate him, the boy TO make
his home with him until he was of age,
hut she to he permitted to visit the child.
to give the mother $4,000 and the boy
$1,000 when he came of age The moth
er consented and thereafter the home of
the boy was with the grandfather. the
mother and son visiting each other fire.
quently.
In 1891, soon amer the by came of age,
the grandfather died, lfut he had not paid.
nor had he made any provision by will or
otherwise for payment Of the $4,000 10
the mother. Therefore she brought suit
against his executors. She lost in the
Dauphin county court, Judge Simonton
deciding that the contract was against
public policy and therefore void.
The Supreme Court admits as general
rule that contracts for the surrender of
the custody of children by parents are
against public policy, but does not find
that such contract as this one has ever
been declared void or against public poll
cy. In the language of the opinion:
AT the time the contract was made the
child was about two years old; the moth
er was living with il at her fathers, apart
from her husband; she and the child were
dependent on the bounty of her father,
who was in moderate circumstances. OBJ
viOusly, whether this situation was
brought about by marital discord or the
fathers viciousness, the future welfare of
the helpless child was in peril. A de-
serted or deserving wife without means
cannot give much of an advantage in the
way of education and comfort 10 the
child. The grandfather. conscious of this,
and being of ample fortune, with view
% his grandson's future and the gratifica-
tion of his own family pride and affec-
ton, proposed to take the boy, give him
home and educate him. While no sew
erance of the maternal relation was con-
templated, personal separation was in
vOlved. BY the arrangement the grand
father secured the constant companion
ship of the boy and the mother relin
quished it. No parental duty or obligation
on part of the mother was east off, nor
was there any such intention, nor was the
arrangement prompted by self-seeking
on the part of the mother; the PROPOSE
tion was made by the grandfather, and
she ont of regard for the advantage accru
ing 10 the child, reluctantly consented.
The grandfather did all he agreed to, the
grandson received all the advantages ex-
pected by the mother. She suffered the
deprivation of his constant society for
nineteen years; the grandfather enjoyed
the presence of his grandson without
alienation in affection, the mother relin-
quishcd the benefit of his personal SER
vice and comfort derived from sons
personal attention. For this she was to
receive $4,000 when the son came of age.
She has right TO recover it unless the
contract was against public policy
Further along, discussing the sale of a
child for money. the Supreme Court says:
''But this was family compact. The
pride of the grandfather centOned on the
child As his only living male descendant
in whose future there was promise; he
was called by his name, and without
question, both in blood and affection, he
stood near to him, Nor was his relation
to the child wholly without legal respon-
sibility. But we are clearly of