The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-13
NOTES OF LRGAL ETENTs

| against Insurance companies. Under our law,
| no order judgment or decree. enjoining.
| strainng or interfering with the prosecution
| OF the business OF any life insurance company
| can be made or granted. except upon the appli.
| cation OF the Attorney General. on his own mo.
| ton. or after he has approved a written request
| OF the Superintendent OF Insurance. There il
| n similar provision In an Act passed by the In.
| diana Legislature on February 10. 1899. and its
validity has Just been sustained by u
decision OF the Supreme Court Of that
state. The authority OF the Legislature
to restrict tho right to sue such corporations Is
asserted most positively in the opinion. thus:
Here we have very explicit language that =
court shall have no power to enjoin or inter-
fcre with tho business OF an insurance COM
pany except upon the condition stated. nance
ly the application of the Attorney General.
That tho Assembly had the power to fix term
tosuch suits cannot be doubted. and that Il
has provided that one but the Attorney
General, either upon his own motion or tho
approved request Of the Auditor Of the State
shall be plaintiff in such suit. is beyond qucs-
ton" II would seem to follow that the Iegis-
lature might relieve any class OF corporations
from all liability to lawsuits except such a,
were instituted by u particular public officer
II there is no constitutional objection +,
legislation exempting corporations from La
the Attorney General or some other specified
State official. IL will be surprising IL CORPORA
tions other than insurance companies do no.
seek similar protection from State legislatures
here and elsewhere. In the Swan case in this
State. Judge John Clinton Gray OF the Court
Of Appeals. spoke OF our statute as designed I,
prevent such an intoleratle nuisance as life
insurance companies would be subjected TO, IL
poicy-hoIder were allowed to maintain suit
70, ,,nI h.,
its expenditures for management and set aside
certain sums for reserve fund. $50 n Y.
Reports page 90 Other classes OF corpora-
tons doubtless regard their liability to suits 40
the instance OF private persons as n burden II
which they would like to rid Themselves
Judge Gray, in the case to which We refer ex-
prcssy holds that the obligations OF the con-
tract between life insurance company and
policy holder are not impaired by denying tho
policy holder the right to maintain an action
Tor certain purposes. except through tho
agency Of the Attorney General
The Supreme judicial Court OF Massachusetts,
has recently been called upon to decide
whether a defendant who has been discharged
by police court. after hearing on a COM
plant for bastardy. can set up this discharge
as bar to subsequent complaint for the
same offence; and IL has answered the question
in the negative. In such a case. there is no
magistrate gives him hearing and then 9th
er binds him over to appear before the Super
Tor Court. II there Is probable cause to hold
him. or else discharges him from custody. The
nature OF the proceeding Is such that tho Sun
premo Court thinks the defendant may law
fully be arrested upon second complaint
for the same offence. when he was
released upon the first prosecution for lack
of sufficient evidence against him. I'VE have
n in ind nj ~ . hao
JusticeLathrop. "thata man should not be sub
,ected to two complaints on the same matter.
But. even in a criminal case, this may be done
where the court discharges man for want OF
probable cause to hold him. In such a case
there Is no acQuitta on the first complaint"
The question is n new one in Massachusetts,.
but has been decided In the same way In New
Hampshire. Kansas, kentucky Alabama and
England.
Atthe Chester AssiZes. on the North Wales
Circuit. Lilly Forsyth. who had been indicted
Jointly with her husband for mansauehter.
was recently tried before Mr.. Justice Kennedy
Tor killing six-year-old boy. who had been
placed under the care OF the couple and whose
death appeared to have been due to lack OF
food and to the violence with which he had
been chastised The defence was that the lad
really died from the effects OF scurvy Mr.
Forsyth did not live to DO tried, SO that his
wife was put upon trial alone, The notable
feature OF the case was ruling OF Mr. Justice
Kennedy in regard to the liability OF married
woman. where she and her husband with
hold proper food or medical attendance from
a child in their custody and care. The learned
Judge would not allow the jury to consider tina
alleged neglect ofthe husband and wife to pro
vide suitable nourishment for the child or call
In requisite medical assistance. hut submitted
the case solely on the question whether the
prisoner had caused the boys death by direct
physical violence. He declared tho old-estab-
lished law to be still in force. which made the
husband and not tho wife liable to furnish tha
child with food and medicine and placed the
wife in such matters in the position Of SER
want to the husband. The verdict was guilty.
with strong recommendation to mercy.
The statement Ia not infrequcntly made that
American decisions and American text book.
are very seldom cited by the English courts.
In matrimonial action recently tried In the
Probate. Divorce and Admiralty Division of the
High Court Of Justice. before Mr., Justice,
Core Barnes. that distinguished Judge
inotes the following passage from the writings
81 the American author Bishop in that part of
his work on the law OF marriage and divorce
which treats OF the subject OF desertion: 1T ia
which OF the married parties leaves
ne matrimonial home, tho one who intends
bringing the cohabitation to an end commits
he desertion.' Desertion is therefore not 10
Dc tested by merely ascertaining which party
eft the matrimonial homo first. husband
whose continued misconduct is such as to Just
~ his wife in leaving their abode must be
ieemcd to have deserted her. IL he persists in
lis wrong-doing. according to the view OF tho
aw adopted by Mr., Justice Barnes in the case
O which we refer
The selectmen Of the town OF Salisbury, IN
.ssex County, Massachusetts,. have adopted
equation. in pursuance OF authority bestowed
pon them by the inhabitants at a town meet.
ne. which prohibits all persons from digging
Jams on Salisbury flats to sell, except those
aNing permits from the seectmen and which
rovides that such permits shall be granted
My to residents Of the town. This regulation
ms been attacked as unconstitutional. but ito
aIidity has been upheld by the Superior Cours