The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-07-11

Irrigation Company, which was heard In the
latter part Of juno by Judge Gideon d. BautS
Of the Territorial Supreme Court. The ltiga-
ton involves the right of American citizens who
have acquired irrigation privileges under acts
Of Congress TO divert tho waters Of tho Rio
Grande so as to diminish the navigability Of
that river when It enters Mexican territory.
The court holds In tho first place that the Rio
Grande within tho boundaries of tho United
States In not . navigable river at all, and in
the second place, that whatever may be the
character OF tho stream, its waters In this
country are exclusively under the control:of our
Government, which In under no obligation 10
Mexico TO exercise that control In such q man.
ner as to increase or maintain the volume OF
the river. ut IL not tho capacity Of q stream
to float q log or rowboat," says Judge Bautz,
which renders It q nevlgablo river within
the acts Of Congress, but whether at regular
periods Of sufficient duration and in It's regular
condition it, capacity 10 such a. to DO suscepti-
bio Of beneficial uso 40 o public highway for
commerce." A preliminary Injunction against
the diversion Of the water by tho defendant cor
poration was dissolved. 1t Is mot impossible
that the question involved In this case may be-
como q subject Of international discussion b-
tween the United States and Mexico.
One of tho latest murder cases considered By
the Court Of Appeals Is that Of Frank @. Con-
| roy, longshoreman, who killed his wife at Og.
dcnsburg, In st, Lawrence county, In May,
1896. The conviction was affirmed o few weeks
| ago In an opinion BY Judge Edward 7. Bartlett
of this city. At the conclusion Of the opinion
we ind this passage In reference TO an extraor-
binary occurrence In the course Of the trial:
ave will now consider the final objection pro
sented by the defendant. The District At
torney had present In court two women Of
apparently i~ll.repute from Montreal, and,
while he was cros~soxamining the defendant
with considerable severity az to his life and
conduct in that city, he caused each Of these
women to rise, and the defendant was asked
as to one Of them II no boarded with her and
recognised her, and he replied that he did. As
TO the other woman he was asked II ho visited
her in O house of in.fame in Montreal. and his
answer was Not as 1 know We are not
prepared to hold that these incidents, to which
no exception was taken. constitute legal error
under the peculiar circumstances Of this case,
but we think 1t 10 a practice not to be encour-
aged" This condemnation by the Court OF
Appeals Is not half severe enough. 1t does
very little good to say that Q public prosecutor
is not to be encouraged in methods which
prejudice the defendants case II you decide
at the same time that such conduct on his part
shall not affect the result.
Two interesting elevator cases have recently
been decided by the courts Of last resort ir
New York and Massachusetts. In the first
case, MoGrell against the Buffalo ONCE Build.
ing Company, the Court Of Appeals makes an
important distinction between the degree OF
care which tho law requires from tho proprie-
tor Of an elevator In respect to the appliances
by which the machine 10 moved and controlled,
where any defect may endanger or destroy life
and the degreo Of care demanded In respect to
A.. ..-.z,.-lt--. a~l .Sl,.ant atr,,t,raa
where less serious peril Is likely TO be occa
stoned by detective construction or arrange
ments. In the first instance, the utmost care
appears TO DO called for, and the rule is like
that which applies TO railroad companies in ne,
gard TO their engines and cars; while as to that
portion Of an elevator plant outside the nova
BILE part and tho hosting machinery, It Is SUI
hcient II the owner exercises the care of a rea
sonably prudent person. In the Massachusetts
case, the plaintiffs husband, who was . team
ster engaged In delivering goods at the stor,
Of Jordan. Marsh d Co.. put his head In TIT
shaft Of q freight elevator In order to shout TO
che car to come down. Tho elevator happened
to be coming down % near him that no wa
caught and killed. This was held to DO 81
plainly an cot Of contributory negligence tina
the widow could not maintain the suit.
A Welsh viii case in which there was a curl
CUB UllliC IA EOiCiohSo ~ lho OhS VI
legates recently came before Mr.. Justice .Ro
mer. sitting In the CHARACTERIZATION Of tn
High Court OF Justice in London. Tho tes
. tatrix, whose namo was Gina Harding, hat
, bequeathed o number Of railway shares Il
/ Daniel Harding. who has lost his leg" Tn
only Daniel Harding in her circle Of acquaint
l ences was o nephew OF her husband. but Will
his name was that given In the will, he did no
answer the description, for he still had bott
, legs. Strangely enough. however. there wer
! two other nephews of the husband of the tesla
. trix, each named Edward Harding. and eac
! Of whom had lost q leg prior to the time whe
, the win was made. This remarkable coinc
denoo gave some trouble to Mr.. Justice Romel
; who had no difficulty In reaching the conclr
Q sion that the legacy was Intended for one q
z the legless claimants, but was Obliged to tax
+ considerable testimony before he could satisf
himself as to which was the true beneficiary
Both Laid claim TO the whole gift and ~rejecte
3 q proposition from counsel that each shout
take hall.
= In tho Gieldsensuppe murder case 1t Is al
nounced that the accused parties have bee
indicted by the Grand Jury Of the County
. Now York and will BIO brought to trial In tn
city, although all the evidence which has bee
q made public indicates that tho homicide wa
committed in Queens county. Tho statemeI
Ia also made that the determination to condut
, the prosecution here was arrived at after
conference between District Attorney Young
q OF Queens county and District Attorney Olco
of New York. Doubtless tho question WI
carefully considered. but we are curious
4 know what was the basis Of the conclusio
. Title 1. of Part ". OF tho Code of Criminal Pr
codure deals with the local Jurisdiction
4 public offences. and among other things pr
o vides that when q crimo Is committed part
In ono county and partly In another, "or II
sots or effects thereof constituting or requisit
to tho contamination Of the offence, occur
u two or more Counties" the jurisdiction Is
y " either county. 1t may be that the wor,
n which We have quoted suffice to bring this ca
within tho purview of tho Now York Graz
Jury, but tho correctness of this view 10 n
10 entirely clear. and II tho killing was actual
done in tho county of Queens . very serio,
d question Of law could have boon avoided by 4
"A dieting and trying tho suspected persons
:. Long Island City rather than In the county