Worcester morning daily spy., 1898-01-11
AMONG THE COURTS.
tcontinued From Second Page.)

sustained, the court ruling that there
was evidence to show that the principal
duty Of Jacobs was that Of superinten-
dent The case was an action to re-
cover damages for personal injuries sus-
tained by plaintiff, while in the employ
OF defendant, in the work Of putting up
poles in Worcester county. Plaintiff al
legged that the accident by which he was
injured was due to the carelessness and
negligence Of defendant
In the superior court a verdict was
ordered for defendant, and plaintiff ex-
cepted. The Judgment of the superior
court has now been affirmed because
the evidence excluded would have ten
ded to show that the accident occurred
IN consequence Of an order or direction
given by defendants superintendent, in
other words that the accident was
caused by an act of superintendency on
ms part" H. Parker, c. c. Miller and
=. r. Stevens for the plaintiff w. S. B.
Hopkins and f. B. Smith for the de-
fendant.
The case of the commonwealth VS..
John A. Dunn of Gardner was a test of
the constitutionality Of the weekly pay
inent law, and by the ruling Of the full
nench the exceptions to the order over
ruling the motion to quash the COM
plant are sustained, the court holding
that there is no sufficient allegation in
the complaint that the wages were due
at the time when it is alleged that the
defendant neglected to pay them" The
case was one which was to be a test of
the constitutionality of the weekly pay
ment law, it being argued that it viii
ates the right of contract Dunn was
tried in the criminal court at the May
term, was found guilty and was fined
$25. The defendant was manufacturer
at Gardner, and employed more than 25
hands. one Struthers was in his EN-
ploy for two weeks in September, 1895,
and 1t was alleged that the defendant
neglected to pay him in accordance
with law. The case was heard at thH
criminal term of the superior court.
There was no defense offered at the
time, as it was understood the case wa,
TO be a test. The questions raised were
upon a motion to quash the complaint,
uhe suft1ciency of the evidence to war
rant conviction and the constitution
allty OF the weekly payment acts of
lS94-5 and g. and whether any penalty
is provided for a violation by an in
dividual Of the weekly payment acts
1t was argued for the defendant that
the acts in question do not apply to per-
sons and partnerships. There are three
classes of corporations, and the injunc-
ton to pay weekly is laid on each class
in different terms. On one class it is
unconditional, unless requested by en-
ployees in writing to pay differently,
and on the other class, if required by
the employee. The case is, which of the
different sections referred to the present
case. The legislation was first aimed
at corporations, and tine attempt was
then made to extend it to certain per-
sons and individuals. When the legis-
lature came to deal with the special
contracts to exempt offenders from the
provisions of these laws, it confined Its
prohibition to persons and partnerships,
leaving corporations at liberty to con-
tract themselves out of the purview of
the statutes.
1t was also argued that the law is
class legislation and selects certain citi-
zens, having equal rights and privi-
leges with all other citizens. The dis
Junction is arbitrary and there is no
reason Why persons In manufacturing
business rather than those in mercantile
business should be selected. A long list
OF authorities was cited to prove these
statements
1T was claimed that there was sufficient
evidence to warrant conviction, as the
act of Dunn was a violation Of the
weekly-payment act There is also a
penalty for conviction. The purpose Of
the statute Is to make null any contract
extending the time at Which wages
should be paid, beyond the period Of IA
days.
Arthur P. Rugg for plaintiff; Frank
?. Goulding, William C. Mellish for de-
fendant.
Judgment for the plaintiff is found in
the case of Eliza A. Aver VS.. Charles
A. Bartlett, the court ruling that .the
attachment was the assertion of a lien
on the wood and the right of posses
sion."
The defendant is deputy sheriff and
attached a wood lot in Northboro, the
property Of the plaintiff, on a claim
against her husband, Alton E. Aver,
who was formerly a broker in this city.
A Judgment was obtained against him,
and the defendant attached the prop
erty to satisfy the judgment. The off,
Ger was sued by Mrs. Aver on the
ground that the property attached was
ners and was not liable for the debts of
her husband. The court ordered a YER
o1ct FOR the defendant in the superior
court, on the ground that no attach
ment had been made, as none of the
property belonged to Aver, and to this
decision exceptions were taken. r. P.
Goulding argued for the plaintiff; C. G.
argued for the defendant.
The libellant's exceptions are over
ruled in the case of Lila c. Tyler VS..
George w. Tyler, the court holding that
''the case is within the public statutes
relating to the same" The point in
question was the legality of the mar
r1age between the parties. The libellant
was formerly the wife of George Mil
ton of Lancaster, and the latter was
granted divorce from her on the
ground of desertion in 1885. Within two
years she married George W. Tyler.
They drove from Lawrence to Salem,
n. H, where the ceremony was per-
formed, and then back again to Law
renee, where they lived up TO the time
the libel was brought. Their marriage
was legal according to the laws of New
Hampshire, but was not legal in this
state, as the decree was not made alb
solute at date two years previous to
the second marriage. This point was
argued by Mr.. Goulding. The parties
had two children, and the contention of
the libellant, who alleges extreme cru
city as the ground for her divorce. is
that, if the marriage is declared inval-
i'd, the children are not legitimate.
Charles G. Bancroft for the plaintiff;
Frank P. GouIding, William G. Mellish
for the defendant
CENTRAL DISTRICT COURT, UT
LEY, JAN. TO-
In the district court, Monday morning,
James Shea and Louis Bulger were
charged with breaking and entering the
saloon of Thomas Harrahy, on Canal
street, Sunday night.
Officer White noticed the men hang
ing about the place early in the even
ing, and when he found the front door
broken in, started out to look them up.
He located his men, and, after lively
chase, succeeded in arresting and bring
ing them to Station /.
Both men pleaded not guilty but were
bound over in $500 each for their appear
anoe in the superior court the third
Monday in January
Edward Lee, charged with assault on
his brother, George H. Lee, was dis