The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-07-14
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

person who has been arrested without
warrant. the Supreme Court OF Ohio
holds. cannot be held in custody for am
longer period than is reasonably necessary
to obtain legal warrant for his detention
and where he Is held for longer period
without such writ or other authority from
competent court he has right OF action
Tor false imprisonment against the officer
or person who made the arrest and those
by whom he has been 10 unlawfully hell.
IN custody. 1t was further heid that in
such an action 1t Is not a defence for the
officer who made tie arrest that he acted
under orders from a superior officer. IYy
the failure 10 procure the necessary war
rant or authority for the prisoners detep.
ton the imprisonment becomes unlawful
from the beginning. and all concerned In
/ ii are equally liable.
a circular addressed to voters charging a
candidate for Representative with having
championed measures in the Legislature op-
posed to the moral interests OF the COM
muhity Is held by the Supreme Court of
Nicnig2n TO be an attack upon the moral
character Of the Representative which
would be likely TO bring him into pubic
contempt and disgrace. and which IA there
fore Ebelous per Sc
The defence was that the charge was
true and the language privileged. But the
court held that as the measures referred to
were not stated. and the charge was ua-
Guaiihediy made. no one had an oppor-
tunity to Judge whether the statement was
proper deduction from the facts upon
which it was based or not. III one states
that candidate is a thief" said the court,
without qualification he communicates a
fact pertaining to his fitness; bu: It is a
SANDER II untrue. whether it was made in
good faiih or not. although mad he stated
the exact facts and expressed the opinion
that they amounted to stealing. though they
did not technically constitute the offence
of larceny. the communication might bs
privileged" But the court held that In
this case the facts on which an opinion
might be based weSe not set forth.
brief which conveys apprehension that
political considerations might be factor
In the decision Of the case was ordered
by the Supreme Court OF Nebraska to be
stricken from the files. mo Judge con-
scious Of bis own integrity" said the
court, will listen to such suggestion. No
seif-respecting court will tolerate an argu-
ment which proceeds on the assumption
that the goad and spur are necessary to
compel 1t to discharge honestly its con-
stituticnal duty. We know, as well as
counsel. that the supreme and memorable -
obligation Of court to truly interpret the
will OF the lawgiver has no possible rela-
ton to questions OF party expediency. It
Is surely not necessary to instruct US as
10 that -
One who employs broker to find a Gus
toner to exchange real eEtate with him is
held by the Supreme Court of Michigan
TO have the right to assume that the agent
is acting solely in his interest. and is not
to receive commission from the Gus
toner.
A landlord who has commenced legal
proceedings fer the ejectment OF his ten
ant. and before the termination thereof
enters upon the leased premises. against
the protest OF the latter. and subsequently
obtains his arrest and Incarceration In jail
upon criminal charge. and without prob
able cause. is held by the Supreme Court
Of Louisiana to be liable to both compea-
satory and punitory damages Having
resorted to legal proceedings to have the
leased premises vacated said the court.
the landlord was without right to make
Il .forcible entry therein
In a murder case recently reviewed BY
the Supreme Court of the United States
1t appears that on the trial a witness tes-
titled on cross examination that although
the night was dark. he identified the de-
PENDANT by the fash Of the pistol shots,
and the prosecution examined Witnesses
In rebuttal with respect to the effect of
light from tie flash of a revolver. and
whether such light would be sufficient 20
enable a person firing the revolver to be
Identified II was commended that the trial
court erred in permitting the prosecution
10 introduce this evidence. but the court
held that. in view OF the fact that the
IT,. To-. rw~ n,
the purpose of showing the time that the
moon rose that night as having some bear
ing upon this question, there was 10 inn
propriety in putting in this testimony.
No liability is created against the
United States for depredations committed
by Indians Of the United States in for
eign country on the property of citizen
Of the United States. holds the Supreme
Court OF the United States, ir Corraltcs
Company VS.. United States and the Apache
Indians. The plaintiff in this case. which
is a New York corporation doing business
in Mexico. sought to recover from this
the value Of $4,000 worth of
property which it alleged was stolen and
carried off by the Apache Indians. and
brought by them from Mexico TO this
The claim was based on the act
Of Congress Of 1881. which gave jurisdic-
ton to the Court OF Claims for depreda-
tons by Indians in amity with the United
States. But the court held that this
statute did not enlarge the liability Of the
Government SO as to include property de-
stroyed or stolen in foreign territory.
A State statute which regulates con-
tracts OF life insurance made between
OF the State and corporations OF To-
other States IS held by the Supreme Court
of the United States. not to be invalid as :
attempting to regulate commerce between
he States, because the business of fire in
;urance is not commerce. The contract
IL Insurance. said the court, 'is not an
fundamentally Of commerce. The max
nS OF such contract is mere incident
II commercial intercourse. and in this
respect there is difference whatever
between insurance against fire and insur-
ince against the periis of the sea. and.
We add. or against the uncertainty OF
mans mortality
college which teaches osteopathy =,
leid by the Supreme Court of kentucky
lot to be medical college within the
meaning Of the statute. which requires tho
tate Board CT Health to issue certiflcats
o practice medicine to any repu. able ply
!cian WHO has a diploma from a reputable
medical college in that State: aud the court
urther held that one who practices osre-
patty. not using medicine or surgical an.
'liances, cannot be considered as practic.
ng medicine as defined In the statute
egulatins the practice of medicine in Ken
ucky. aud that. therefore, a certificate
rom the State Board of Health is not nee
,ssary to authorize one to practice that
cience.