The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-11-16

A man in st. Louis county makes a
| threat against the life of a certain
woman. The woman in question swears
out warrant for his arrest He L.
put In Jail and brought before the JUS,
tice OF the peace the day following and
gwen the alternative of signing a bond
OF S400 to keep the peace or going to
jail for six months. He refuses to sign
a bond, and he is sent TO Jail. Through
ms attorneys he secures a writ of
haDeas corpus, which is quaShed upon
hearing in the district court.
The case is carried to the supreme
| court, and the court, in an opinion
written by Judge Buck, says the sher-
III OF st. Louis county, in the lawful
| discharge OF his duties is sustained in
carrying out the order of the justice
court and, further, William Beslow,
the appellant, must stand the conse-
quences II he refuses to obey the man
date of the lower court The court
holds, In its decision, that Beslow's
offense is serious crime against So
ciety and comes under the head of
preventive justice" Judge Buck cites
Blackstone's doctrine that preventive
justice" is preferable to punitive JUS
tice''
The decision establishes a precedent
of the powers and limitations of jus
ttce courts. The syllabus is as follows:
Al re petlliOH OF Wm- Beal0W, TO be dis
charged from custody a writ Of habeas
corpus; VIM. Bealow, petitioner, appellant
VS.. VIM. c. Sargent, sheriff OF st. Louis
county, respondent.
Syllabus. Where proceedings are in
stituted unde? General Statutes of 1894
chapter 104, providing for proceedings to
pears upon examination by the justice that
there Is Just cause to fear that the offense
threatened will be committed by the party
complained of, and he refuses or negleots to
q WI suff1 lent
sureties in such sum the magistrate d.
reefs TO keep the peace toward all the peo-
pie OF this state. and especially toward the
person requiring such surety for such term
as the magistrate orders, not exceeding six
months, then the magistrate may commit
him 70 the county jail during the period
for which he was required to give security
or until he so recognizes. Section 6, article
s of the constitution, limiting the 1urisdic-
1on OF Justices OF the peace to punishment
In q criminal cause not exceeding three
months or fine of over 800, has no ap-
plleation 70 proceedings Of this kind. 1t re-
str1cts and limits the punishment for a past
onense, but the proceedings under chapter
1Q4 OF the General Statutes 1894 are ealculat-
ed and instituted for the purpose Of depriv-
ing the defendant of the power to do future
mischief or crime, and secure his good be-
havior. And under section 1899 OF said
statute, where in such proceeding a person
is required to give security to keep the
peace or for his good behavior the magis-
trate may order the costs Of prosecution to
be paid by such person and order him 70
or he is otherwise legally discharged. Or
der affirmed. Buck, ].
In the suit brought by the Duluth
club, insolvent, against G. f. Mcdonald,
member, the court holds that the re-
cent action Of q part of the members
in passing a resolution taxing each
member of the club $40 to nquidate the
clubs debts was Illegal or without ef-
feet, as the organization had neither
sA.~Lt
aid merely as q member of the club
is not liable for It's debts. The case Is
test case The syllabus is as fol-
lows:
The Duluth Club, appellant. VS.. @. F. No
Donald. respondent.
Syllabus-A corporation has not the pow
er, as incident to II, to assess for its own
use sum OF money on the cerporators and
compel them by action at law to pay 1t. Such
power must be derived from statute or some
other express promise to pay It. Order af-
hrmed. Buck, ].
The other decisions handed down In
the supreme court yesterday are as
follows:
Waiter Warner. respondent, vs. Earnest
Schultz, appellant.
sylIabus-It is general rule that parol
evidence is inadmissible to explain away or
vary written instrument, but 1t is compe-
tent to show by parol evidence that subse-
quent to the giving Of a note there was
total failure or consideration Ior Whlch IL was
given. Order reversed. Buck ].
John A. Baker, respondent vs.. William
Anglim, appellant.
Synabus-Evidence considered and held in
sufficient 10 justify the verdict OF the Jury.
Buick, J.
Katherine Nealy respondent, VS.. Robert
Mannheimer ct al, appellants.
]. A local custom or usage cannot be
proven tending to impeach express con-
tract, nor tending to subvert a we'll settled
rule of law and thereby to show that the
testimony OF one party Is more reasonable
than that of the others.
3. Evidence considered and held sufficient
TO justify the verdict Of the jury. Order Of
hrmed. Buck, ].