The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-08-25
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS

An owner OF property on which a dog Is
trespassing is held by the Supreme Court
OF Mississippi. in the case of Hodges vs..
Causey cas- L. r. A., So. not to have a
legal right to kill the dog merely becauss
he has notified the owner OF the dog net to
let it run in his field. And the court fur
ther held that II dog has no market value
mis- special pecuniary value to his owner
.iay De shown, and the pedigree, charac-
.4risties. and qualities OF the dog proved
~ witnesses who knew these things.
VIII gave granddaughter an estate
for the purpose OF securing to mir, a lih-
erai education" and required him to com
piete a collegiate course, and provided
further that II. through his own disincii-
nation or iacapacity or the indifference OF
his parent or guardian, he should fail to
carry out these Intentions the estate
should pass from him into the body Of the
.estator's estate. The granddaughter died
while in college. and 1t was coatended that
the condition OF the will was not per-
formed. viz, the completion of the coll
iegiate course, and that therefore his
snare OF the estate passed into the body OF
the testator's estate. But the court held
that the non performance of the condition
was excused by the death OF the grand
and descended to his heirs-at-law and next
OF kin. tEllicott VS.. ElIicott, 4s L. r. A.,
5S.J
The Supreme Court Of Minnesota. in the
case of Pabst Brewing Company VS.. Liston
ts3 N. ". Rep. 49, held that It is the
universal rule in this country that the
stakeholder who pays over money bet upon
an election. after notification not to do so,
nnrtt 1A
maintained against him for the money by
the party giving such notice.
Where a court Is created by the cons
stitution, the Supreme Court Of Georgia,
in the case of Bradley VS.. State (3s S. e,
Rep, 630) held that the Legislature cam
not, without express constitutional authors
ity, define what are contempts. and de-
clare that the court shall have jurisdic.
ton over no acts except those specified,
and the court further held that the pro-
vision OF the constitution which declares
that the power OF the courts to punish
for contempts shall be limited by Iegis-
lative acts" does not confer such au-
thority, but only the power to prescribe
the punishment after conviction; and thar.
legis alive statute which seeks
TO limit the Jurisdiction of a constitutional
court TO punish contempts to certain s,lecf-
ned acts Is not binding upon such CO irts.
They may go beyond the provisions OF the
statute, in order to preserve and enforce
their constitutional powers, 81 treating as
contempts acts which clearly invade them.
In New York it is provided by statuts
that the owner or lessee OF every tene-
nent or lodging house in the city Of New
York shall keep a light burning in the
hallway upon each floor Of said house from
.unset until 10 p m throughout the year."
Under this statute tenant, who was in
ured by falling down hall stairway on
recount Of alleged negligence OF the land
ord in not providing proper light, sued
he landlord for damages and recovered a
-erdict Of $3.50. On appeal the Supreme
'ourt, Appellate Division. sustained the
'erdict The Supreme Court held that,
ven though the plaintiff knew the hail.
ray was dark and dangerous. he was not
uilty CT contributory negligence. as mat
er of law. in not carrying a light On
he trial of the case an almanac was pro-
uced for the purpose Of showing the time
sunset on the day Of the accident. This
'as objected to. and on appeal assigned
s error. But the Supreme Court Appel
ste Division, held that ii was entirely
roper for the court, without evidence to
AXE judicial notice OF the time OF sunset
i the day of the accident, and for the
urpose of refreshing the mind of the
ourt, there was no legal objection to con-
llting an almanac IAN almanac" said
le court. from unofficial source. and
OF properly verified. is not, strictly speak,
lg. competent evidence" (Sendle vs..
obinson. So N. Y. Supp. s94)
4 verdict for $1,000 damages against
le Western Union Telegraph Company
as held by the Supreme Court Of Ten<
,ssee in the case of Western Union Tel
,raph Company VS. Firth (5S S. W. Rep,
81 not 20 be excessive for the distress
mind caused by the failure of the COM
my to deliver telegram announcing
e death of plaintiffs son in time for
e plaintiff to be present at the burial.
discussing this question the court said:
There are in all such cases several con-
derations which enter into the estimate
damages. They cannot be said to rest
ION peuniary considerations, for no
ouey beyond the mere cost OF the tele-
am, is involved. But in this case we
I'VE the grief. disappointment. and
entail anguish of a father for his only
i'd whose burial he was prevented from
tending and experimenting. In addi-
III. we must look 10 the fact he realized
at the mother was left alone in her
stress and that he was deprived OF the
ivilese of being with her, and, SO far as
could, by mitigating her grief by minis
ing 10 hSr IN the hour OF DSreaFSGent,
d this was a source of grief and dis
pointplent TO him. All of these con-
leratioHs added to the distress o. the
-her and husband are proper to be
,ked to- not from the standpoint Of
npathy for the unfortunate. but in esti-
ItinG the grief and disappointment Of
father over the situation in which he
5 placed by the failure TO deliver the
egram.'
n Texas an employee of railroad COM
ny ned the company for damages for
uries resulting from a kick by a horse.
e employe, while attempting TO fasten
door of a stock car into which horses
been driven, was seriously injured
a horse rushing out-and kicking him.
alleged that the bolt in the door OF
car was defective and that had 1t not
N so he could easily have closed it and
vented the escape Of the horse hereby
iding the injury. The trial judge took
case from the jury and gave Judgment
the railroad company, and on appeal
curt of Civil Appeals held that the
ective t0i5 was not the proximate cause
the injury, but that 1t was wholly due
an intervening cause.-The kicking Of
horse-and the judgment for the rail-
d company was affirmed. stephens. j..
lbted the correctness of the above con-
sion of the majority of the court. how