The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-28
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

| oo'h ny the lay press and legal writer's.
rne case OF the People ex rel. Liable vs.
DisHict court OF Lake County (i6 l.. Il. A.,
''"'' oeciaed by the Supreme Court of Col
! oraao' is OF peculiar Interest Ore OF the
questions in this case was whether an m
Junction could be granted TO restrain gam
/ ping IN the city OF Leadyil,e be .ause OF its
cofrdptlng and vicious influences, and It's
deteriofating effects upon the morals Of
tne community The injua5tio was asked
! lot IN the district court, and was granted
whereupon the defendants applied to the
! supreme Court for writ OF prohibition
/ TO restrain the district court from pio-
/ ceedlng with the suit, and the Supreme
| Court issued the writ against the District
/ Court.
The original suit begun In the Dis
trict Court by Mrs. Mary Henderson Pres
ldent OF the Leadviile Woman's Christian
Temperance Union, and her complaint.
among other allegations, contained the
Following; That she is a citizen and rest
cent OF the city. and a property owner
therein. and is interested in the moral.
material, and financial welfare Of said city;
! that she is the mother OF two boys now
reaching manhood. and is interested In
their moral welfare, that she is the Presi-
dent of the Leadville branch OF the wom-
ans Christian Temperance Union an or
ganlzation having for Its object among
other things the preservation and protec-
tion OF the morals ard character OF the
people Of Leadville; that said organiza-
ton has reading room in said city, ard
that the unlawful practices complained of
are being committed within few doors
Of its reading room; that the population o.
said city is composed of men. women, and
children, aggregating about Is 600; that it
is TO her interest that said city be nae
so far as possible. a peaceatie. law-lov-
ing, and order-abiding community. 10 The
end that the husbands and fathers may not
be led astray by the unla wful devices and
practices carried on by the defendants
and that her moral and financial interests
may be protected.
II was contended that as the District
Court was vested with Jurisdiction to issue
in1unctions, its exercise OF this right in a
particular case could not be enquired into
on an application for writ of prohibition.
but the Supreme Court denied the eonten-
tion and held that an injunction could rot
issue to prevent a criminal act merely be-
cause it is criminal. and when it H. no way
violates property or civil right; snl as
this case failed to disclose any suen special
injury to Mrs. Henderson IS would iusti-
fy her in maintaining this lc iya. or any
injury that is not common to iha entire
community. and fails 10 show that any
property rights are injured the Injunction
u "
OF no case in the books, said the court.
where similar perversiJn OF justice
mas occurred, where suc1 an uE warranted
abuse Of the process of Injunction has neen
perpetrated as was threaJcns in this case
in the District Court
In granting the Injunction the Judge OF
the District Court said If II be true that
no direct precedent can be foand, it IS time
that one should be created; and. as Murat
declared himself to be his cwn ancestor
this court will be its own precedent. IL
is time the increased use Of injunct ons IN
certain directions should at least be SO ex-
tended that relief MAJ be Afforded in cases
like this
In commenting upon the expression OF
the lower judge, the Supreme Court said:
Whether the ancestor was proud of his
offspring. or the maker Of this precedent
is entitled to the credit for its creation is
not strictly legal question. We can only
add that this remarkable declaration must
speak for itself" \ PETITION for a rehear-
ing was denied.
Communications made to a letter carrier
and kno@ledge acquired by him while in
the discharge of his duties are held By the
Superior Court of Delaware in Smith vs.
Smith as All. Rep. S4S) not to be privi-
legged so as 70 excuse him from testifying
thereto as a witness in an action for
not delivered letters addressed to Mrs.
Smith; if she had rot requested him not
TO deliver letters at her house addressed
to her when she was not there; if he had
not carried letters addressed to her for
several days, when she was not at home.
and whether he had not met Mrs. Smith
at points away from her house and given
letters to her All of these questions the
letter carrier refused to answer on the
ground that he was and IS an official Of
the United States Government in the Ca
pacity Of letter carrier, and that any
knowledge he receives as letter carrier
or as an official Of the United States is
privileged and he is not obliged to dis
close il. and that public policy requires
That he should not disclose it, But the
curt held otherwise and ordered that the
questions be answered.
When the work Of the construction, re-
pair. Or alteration Of street railway track
n the streets of q city is authorized by
aw. and excavations are made in such
work which are to be kept open at night,
he Supreme Court of New Jersey, in
Fox vs.. William Wharton, jr. & Co. (i5
At ReD. 1927 holds that the duty is in
.umbent upon those in the performance
IF the work under a contract with the
street railway company to exercise Tea
,oaabte care 10 guard such excavation, to
protect those IN the use OF tHe StISttS
rom injury from such excavations; and
urther, that in order to be reasonable
he degree of care must be a higher one,
because those who are in the use of the
street nave the right TO assume, unless
heir attention has been attracted to the
LANCER that the street is free from sucn
xcayations.
Under statute the Supreme Court Of
Sew Jersey in State VS.. Board Of Police
a., Att. S03} holds that a
,oard of police commissioners has power
o investigate complaint duly presented,
yhch accuses a policeman of misconduct
n the discharge OF his official duties, even
hough the misconduct may involve an
offence. and If the board refuses
O entertain such d complaint on an err
oneous opinion that it has 10 authority,
mandamus will be awarded.
In case a deot is lost through the ncci-
.ence OF a collecting agsat. the Supreme
Our; Of Nebraska. in Omaha Natioaal Bank
s. Kiner tS2 y ". Rep. 1922. holds that
he measure Of damages Is The actual ioss
esuIting from such agent InI&sion Of
uty II there is rea on ble nrobabIl-
ty'- .sid the court, that the entire debt
would have been collected hut for h.
srr,t-s negligence. the amoun, Of to,
lain il the measure OF recovery
A beoucst in will, - lie paid 10 tho
randson of the tesrj:eiv two years al er
er death provided that he shsl b,
eerled a reformed nan. in the Judgment
the executors OF the viii. in the juGg-
tent OF the Supreme Court OF Michigan. in
larkham vs. Hurord tS2 y. W. Rep,