The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1895-07-29
NEW POINTS IN LAW.
Book That win Be Interesting to Layman
and Attorney.

and Attorney.
The first half of volume 65 Of the
Connecticut law reports Is now out,
and the following are some of the new
points decided;
In re-applicatlon of Clark. If town
grand Jurors while holding a court Of
inquiry to see if there is ground for
criminal prosecution, ask a witness
proper question which he declines to
answer, amy justice of the peace can
send him to Jail till he does
Hopsohs appeal An appeal to the
superior court from an order of the
county commissioners, granting a
liquor license, gives the court the
same discretion which the commits
soners had. 1t is not bound by the
technical rules of evidence any more
than they We're.
Security Co. vs. Pratt. A petition to
remove a case from state court to
the United States circuit court must
be filed in the state court as early as
a plea in abatement would have to be
filed there, whether there is any inten-
tion to file such a plea or not Nor
can the petition be amended in the
state court, after that time has ex-
pired by bringing in any new ground
for removal. Suits to construe wills
can be brought in the United States
courts, as well as In the state courts,
If they are between citizens of differ
emit states.
Bissell VS.. Dawson. 1t is not right,
but "a privilege to have children edu-
Gated in the public schools, and the
laws can attach any reasonable condi-
lions to the exercise of 1t. Requiring
children to be vaecinated is a reasona-
BILE condition. and one who refuses to
submit to the operation can be ex-
cluded from school by the school
board until he consents.
Donovan VS.. Hartford Street Rail-
way company. A person about to
board a street car does not become a
passenger or enter into any special re-
lations to the company as common
carrier, until he either enters the COM
pany's premises or actually undertakes
to enter the car. Signalling the car
to stop for him, does not give him a
passengers rights, if Instead of stop
ping for him, they run him down In
the street, by going on the wrong
switch.
Driscoll VS.. Norwich and Worcester
Railroad company, A lease OF a rail-
road does not relieve the original owner
from liability for future accidents tc
travellers using 1t unless the operating
franchise is transferred, as we'll as tbs
road, and the legislature consents to it
State VS.. Lee. The Connecticut stat
ute giving an appeal In favor of the
state for errors in law resulting In the
acquittal Of the accused in criminal
case, whether capital or not, Is valid
No man is twice put In jeopardy by q
second trial, when the first was go err
roneously conducted as to be "a rnistria
and require a new trial to satisfy pub.
| lie justice. The state has the Same
right as the criminal to demand thai
| his trial shall be legally conducted
| and no Judgment is final, winch the
| law allows to be reviewed for error II
| its nendition.
State VS.. Smith. The court is no.
bound in every criminal case to tel
\ the jury that the accused is presumed
to be innocent, until proved to bt
| guilty. That presumption has no force
| as evidence 1t simply settles the bur
| den of proof Nor need the court aftel
| telling the jury that they should &C
| quit the defendant if they have a. reas.
| enable doubt of his guilt proceed t.
| explain what Is such a reasonable
doubt" 1t sufficiently explains itself,
| This view of the presumption of in
| nocence seems to differ from tina
taken by the supreme court of thu
| United States in the case OF Coffin VS.
United States 1856 U. s. 4s2. When i
| is treated as an instrument of proc
created by the law"
| State VS.. Fetterer. The judge in {
| criminal case has the right to tell thu
jury that If they find the facts to be 81
and so, the law is such that they oughi
| to render a verdict Of guilty. This i
not directing a verdict. 1t leaves thu
facts to the jury, and only tells then
what would be the proper legal con
| clusion from them, If they believe then
! to exist. A delivery and sales agen
| for a Wholesale dealer is not an 'itin
Grant peddler," who requires licens
| from town selectmen.
| Crofut VS.. Danbury. Municipal cor
porations cannot offer rewards for tn
detection of criminals, without specia
authority from the legislature.