The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-03-06
rorEa or LEaAn ErENrs.

YUNIIHA ZIG nuuNu NN AA nav SeAAA WV
works. While this particular statute was mp
held as q proper health regulation, thevalidity
Of eiehs.hour lava generally was not passed
upon. Tho Supreme Court on Monday also de-
foatei the effort Of q deputy United States Mar
shat In Oklahoma to secure n homestead by To-
cntinr n tract of land for his own benefit before
the public generally weretadmitted into the Torri-
tory. It was obviously unfair that a public off,
Ger who was allowed to enter the Territory while
would.be settlers were kept out should take adj
vantage Of that privilege TO gain q preference
under the land W
The judicial Committee Of tho Privy Council
in England hears appeals from the various
British colonies and from British consular
courts in foreign countries. An illustration
OF the cosmopolitan character of tho work of
this tribunal Is furnished by the calendar of
appeals before It when 1t resumed Its sessions
on the 9TH Of February, after q vacation. The
nineteen cases on the list included judgments
rendered IN Australia Now South wales). Can
ada tthe Supreme Court of the Dominion and
the Supreme Court Of Ontario), New Zealand,
Constantinople, and India Bengal, Madras,
Bombay, Allahabad. and oude). .
In q forgery case lately determined by the
Supreme Court of Indiana an expert In hand.
writing was asked o number Of questions do
signed to show that q forger when endeavorihg
to disguise or initiate tho writing Of q particu-
lar hand IL moro careful at the beginning than
at tho close Of the attempt, or. In other words,
that he grows moro careless as he proceeds with
his task. 1t was held that such questions did
not call for testimony which could properly DO
regarded On within the legitimate field Of OK.
pert or opinion evidence. They involved no
scientific knowledge. THE care OF one man.
said Mr.. Justice Hackney, us not evidence OF
the care which may be exercised by another in
an effort to commit O forgery any more than ID
the skill Of one mar In executing the imitation
or disguise evidence Of the skill of another"
Tho refusal of the trial court to receive such tes-
timony was plainly right. and was unanimously
sustained.
The legal adjudication OF the term furniture
has been in various cases declared broad enough
to include pictures, statuary. bronzes. plate,
china. and linen. The question recently arose
in the Appellate Court OF Indiana whether a
policy of insurance on household furniture"
covered carpets and bed clothing; and the
court answered the question in the affirmative.
This decision 10 In accordance with the tendency
Of the courts toward a liberal construction OF
fire insurance policies in behalf Of the insured.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois, In o case which
we find in the current volume Of the Northeast
ern Reporter, has very clearly pointed out the
difference which exists between the law as laid
down In England and tho law as declared In
this country in relation to the implied warranty
of wholesomcness upon tho sale OF meat for I'm
mediate domestic use. The plaintiff was q wo-
man who bought some pork from the DEFENDANT,
a retail dealer in meats. who knew that she pur-
chased the pork for immediate consumption by
herself and family. The pork was, in fact, unit
to eat and made the plaintiff and her family Ill.
She sued for breach Of the implied warranty OF
wholcsomeness. The trial court held that there
was no such warranty. and the defendant had
Judgment there; but the Supreme Court re-
vcrsed it, saying in the course Of the opinion:
I'm England at common law there could be no
recovery, as there was no implied warranty OF
quality. But the law on the subject as estab-
lishcd in England does not prevail hero. As a
rule, we think the decided weight OF authority
In the United States Is that on all sales OF meats
or provisions for immediate domestic use by o
retail dealer there is an implied warranty of
soundness or wholesomeness." No such-war.
ranty arises. however. from the sale OF meats
or provisions to a middleman who buys merely
that he may sell to others; and tho court also
holds that even in the case Of a sale for im're'
date domestic use the warranty Will be I'M
piled only against a regular dealer.
The system OF meat inspection by officers Of
the national Government has been pronounced
demonstrations in a decision rendered ON
Mon lay by Judge John Rodgers in the Uni
ted States District Court for the Western
district Of Arkansas. Ho set aside an indict-
ment for bribing a Government meat inspec-
tor, on the broad ground that the Federal Con-
s~titution docs not confer upon Congress any
power to legislate in reference to the packing OF
meat in storchouses or the inspection of meat
when thus stored. Hence he holds that the
attempt to establish the office Of meat inspec-
tor was Intellectual. and there Is no such officer.
Notwithstanding this decision. it Is announced
from Washington that meat inspection will be
continued for the prese 1t under the direction of
the Department Of Agriculture. The new
Attorney. General thinks that the indictment
passed on by Judge Rodgers omitted to state
facts which would have shown that the inspect
ed meat was really in transit from one State to
market In another, and thus became liable to
Congressional legislation US a subject of inter
state mme
A remarkable application has been made to
the French Government in the case Of a man
named GERMAN Cirasse. who was triedfor muir.
der and condemned to death as long ago as
1852. His three daughters have petitioned
the authorities to review the trial and exoner-
ate their father, although he was executed moro
than forty years since. THE crime, even:if
committed. was partly political" says the Lon
don Times. but there are abundant reasons
for believing that Cirasse was the victim of a
judicial blundcr." IL Is said In Paris that the
petition Of the daughters is 80 strongly sup
ported by evidence that it Is likely to BIO granted.
Under the law of this State as 1t stood prior
to 1895. II a judgment of divorce had been
granted awarding a certain amount Of all.
mony the court had no power to modify the
Judgment subsequently by increasing the
amount to DO paid by the husband. In 1895.
the Code OF Civil Procedure was amended.
however, 80 as 10 authorize this to be done.
upon due notice; and in tho case of Walker
against Walker. which was decided by the
Court of Appeals on Tuesday. the question
arose whether the amendment operated upon a
divorce granted before the amendment was
adopted-or. in other words, whether it em-
powered the court 10 increase the alimony
fixed by n decree OF divorce granted in 1891.
-. a-tN H.. - ~ E. 49,. l.