The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-09
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

faithful discharge Of his dutfes. Hit VIII
did not perform the work Of tde oflic
himself. employing an assistant for tina
purpose. whom he paid individually,
held liable by the Court of Appeals Of Ken
lucky. in Grant County Deposit Bank va
Pourt Is 8. W. Rep. 663). for the defaul
Of the assistant. where the cashier Gid no
examine the accounts OF his assfseant, be-
cause he was incompetent on account oil
being habitually intoxicated. The court
said: 1T was his duty to supervise bis
subordinate and keep an oversight ovel
the books. II he voluntarily incapacitated
! himself from the discharge of his duties,
| the loss resulting therefrom should fan
rather on him. for he had given bond for
the faithful discharge of his duties. and
I MS own drunkenness Is 60 defence for
him for breach OF the bond"
The Court Of Queens Bench division In
England has been called upon in the cass
CT Palmer vs.. Snow, to determine under
what class Of avocations that of barber
| comes. but It seems to have been unable to
i give an Affirmative classification. X say3
/ negatively that he is net craftsman.
artifcer, CT laborer." The Irish Queen
Bench is also struggling with this que,-
ton. and like the English court. answer In
| the negative that he is not a ''laborer,
servant in husbandry, journeyman. artif-
! Ger, handicraftsman. miner. or otherwise
engaged in manual labo-" One OF the law
yefs who appeared in the case was asked
by the chief justice how he o,lti describe
a barber. and he replied with coyimenda5Ie
discretion that he was "a person who en-
gagged in the avocation OF a barber
The Supreme Court CT Alabama, In Hor-
ton vs. State CT So. Rep, 1857, holds that
the shooting and killing Of a dog does not
constitute cruelty to animals within the
meaning Of the statute. The court said
the word .'cruelty" as employed in the
statute means something more than to kill.
Otherwise. 1t might follow that the kill
ing of a pig or OK for the market would
fall within the letter Of the law.
While the unity of the marriage refs-
ticu exists between husband and wife. tho
Supreme Court Of Rhode Island in How
land VS.. Granger. holds that the wife can
not acquire a domici1e distinct from that
Of her husband, and that the domicile Of
the husband Is, in legal contemplation.
that Of the wife. even though the actual
residence of the husband may be in one
place and that Of the wife in another.
Where passenger on railroad train,
the conductor. was afterwarf called on By
another conductor Of the same train. wh0
demanded his ticket, and ON his failure 70
produce ticket and refusal TO pay fare.
elected him from the train. the Supreme
Court OF Appeals Of West Virginia. in Low.
ings vs.. Norfolk and C. Railway Company
(35 s. E. Rep, 962), holds tina. tho passen-
ger can recover damages against the rail-
way company.
In the case OF Sread vs.. Bonmoil. an ac-
ton for false imprisonment. the Supreme
Court of New York. appellate division,
held that the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover on the following facts: Tee PLAINTIFF
whom 1t afterwards appears carried cons
cealed weapon. was arrested by police of1>
GERS and locked up at police headquarters
for the night On the following morning
the officers took him before magistrate
and there charged him with being sus-
picicus per<on. They then made no charga
Of carrying concealed weapon. On the
contrary. they asked the magistrate to re-
mard the plaintiff to their custody f0u
another day to enable them to make en-
quiries about him and about the property
which they suspected he had stolen. They
succeeded in inducing the magistrate to do
this. and. accordingly. the plaintiff waa
confined another day at police headquar<
He was taken before the magistrate the
next day. The officers. having concluded
that they could not sustain their original
accusation, charged the plaintiff with
carrying a concealed weapon. II he had
been charged with this misdemearor when
first arrested he could have given bail. yeg
The was thus detained" said the court
unnecessarily and Illegally. and deprived
Of the right to give bail so far IS the
OH of Cd Uoa vrD
concerned Thus the officers utilized the
felony charge to detain the plaintiff for az
least tw5nty-four hours beyond the time
when he was entitled to his discharge upon
bail upon the misdemeaneF charge, and tho
latter charge. though entered altsrnativelY
ON the blotter at police headquarters. waa
only made to the magistrate as last re-
sort. when it was found that the real
charge upon which he had been detained
could no longer be adhered to.
Upon principle and authority eon>
tinued the court. this conduct CT the de-
PENDANT made him liable as a trespassep
alb initio. Beyond persdventure he was
liable for every hour that he detained the
plaintiff after he and his associate secured
the remand from the magistrate for a rea<
son which could not have awaited them had
they then charged the plaintiff with misc
demeanor."
A rifle club is held by the Supreme Coure
of Louisiana, in Simmcnds vs.. Southern
Rifle Club (27 So. Rep, 656). to be liablo
for injury to outside persons resulting
from target practice on its premises. and
where the evidence excludes every other
reasonable hypothesis than that tbs ball
which struck the person injured was fired
from the club grounds. by members or
guests engaged in target practice. such
person is emitted to recover from the club.
A witness who swears falsely about .
relevant matter before de fGcto judge.
whose judgment is binding upon the par
ties to the proceeding. Is held by the SUI
preme Court OF Kansas. in State VS.. Will
Jams go Pac. Rep. 1e50). to be guilty Of
as Though the oath had been administered
by de jure Judge.
Under the election law CT West Virginia
the Supreme Court Of Appeals. in Dunlevy
vs.. County Court (35 S. E.. 956). bo.is that
the duties OF the board OF canvassers, In
recounting the ballots. are purely minis
terial. and not judicial. and it is its legal
duty to count all ballots or parts OF BALI
lots where the intention of the voter ape
pears from the face of the ballots. though
not marked or erased In the plain NAM
ner directed in the statute. and to rejece
all ballots or parts Of ballots where sucn
intention does not appear from the face oa
the ballots. II, from the face OF his bal.
lot. the intention OF the voter is apparent
as to his choice CT candidates for any of
flee. his vote should be counted as to SUCH
office. although his intention as to other
candidates for ether offices be non-ascer>
tainahIe and the ballot invalid as to then1s