The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-15
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


$500. with the understanding that the note
should be spent for personal property to
be owned by them equally. Afterward thu
wife claimed that her husband compelled
her to mutilate the note by tearing off
one Of the signatures for the purpose Of
defrauding and abandoning her. She testi.
fled that he threatened that, unless she
tore the name from the note. he would
do her bodily injury. and heap Goals OF
fire on her head as long as she lived"
She also testified that about four months
before the execution of the note she at
tended church in disobedience to his COM
| mands, and that he said she ought to
have her throat cut and her heart taken
out
The Supreme Court t0regon) held that
these facts did not show that she mutt
lated the aote under duress: that she IN
derstood the threats as merely amounting
TO an expression Of an intent to annoy
her; that the statement that she ought to
have her throat cut did not amount to a
threat. and that the threat to heap Goals
OF hre on her head was only hyperbolical.
Chester vs.. Kester. 81 Pac. Rep, $751;
| The leading business men OF Ana Arbor,
Mich. being anxious to have the validity
i Va q tcAtdiu CITY ordnance IeSCeu Dy the
courts, requested the marshal to arrest
person alleged to have violated the ordi-
nance, and executed bond Of indemnity
to the marshal to protect him from dam
| ages foT false arrest In making the ar
| rest. The arrest was made, and the pri5-
oner was put In Jail, but was treated
! with the utmost consideration, being pro-
vided with good room and bed. and eat
ing his meals with the sheriff. The ordi-
nance was held void. and the party ar
! rested began suit for malicious prose-
cution against the marshal and Others
The lower court directed a verdict for
the defendants. which. on appeal, the Su-
prcme Court affirmed. Citizens and the
city onicers,' said the court were justi-
NED IN taking proceedings to have the va
lfdlty OF the ordinance determined in the
courts. and. SO long as they did not act
maiiciously OF oppressively. the law pro-
tectcd them in so doing; otherwise an at
torney might close the courts to the de-
termination OF these questions. unless
some official was willing to run the risk
OF suit for false Imprisonment or ma
licious prosecution" (James vs.. Sweet ct
al, 81 N. W. Rep. 61.)
girl Of fourteen years Of age was
committed to the Industrial School for
Giris at Geneva, Neb.. under complaint
S.AoA 6Ah6 t1aL Sue WIS lQC0TIIKiDle. AIs0r-
ward she was released and commenced an
action fer false arrest and Imprisonment
against the complainant and obtained
verdict for $500 damages. The Supreme
Court. on appeal, sustained the verdict
holding that complaint charging no crime
but incorrigibility merely. states NO cause
Tor commitment to the Industrial reform
school. and that a person SO arrested and
committed has a cause of action against
the person filing the same, for false i'm
prisonment. (Scott Vs. Flowers, 81 N. W.
Rep, 81
A party leased the land of another with
the exclusive right to oil for a royalty of
one-eighth thereof. He also leased adj
joining lands from another owner, sunk
well on them, near the dividing line of the
two tracts Of land, and drained the oil
from the land Of the first owner until it
was nearly exhausted. Having obtained
almost all Of the oil on the first tract By
thus sinking a well on the adjoining one
be surrendered his lease to the first tract.
In an action by the owner of the latter
for damages the court Supreme Court)
held that IL the party sinking the well
designedly placed 1t 80 near the plaintiffs
land as to draw Oh the oil. 1t was a mani
fest intentional injury to the plaintiff. and
that even 1t he did not Intentionally place
the we'll so near the line OF plaintiffs
land for the purpose OF draining oil from =,
it, yet when he found 1t was good oil ter
ritcFy 1t was his duty to sink a well on
plaintiffs land. and in not doing so, bur
nevertheless holding the lease, inflicted
great injustice on tho plaintiff. The court
said that as 1t was impossible to ascertain
the quantity OF oil drained from the plant
IFS land they would allow him as damages
the royalty provided for in the lease.
tKiepbner vs. Lemon (Pa.). AZ Alt. Rep,
1852
A suit to enjoin the officers of State
from enforcing an unconstitutional
statute which subjects person to a seiz-
ure OF his property and the closing CT his
place of business, for his failure to pay
license imposed by such statute. Is held
by Judge Garland of the United States
District Court, In the case Of Minneapolis
Brewing Company vs.. McGillivray QO4
Fed. Rep. 25S). not to be an action
against the State within the meaning of
the eleventh amendment to the Constitu-
ton. and Is one of which Federal court
Of equity has Jurisdiction. ~
A brakeman was caught between a car
On the side of which he was riding. and
6Sh chute situated so near the main track
that there was not sufficient room to al
low his body to pass between IL and the
cars. The chute and track were not with
In the yards of the railroad company. and
the brakeman was unacquainted with the
and had had no opportunity
to become familiar with them. The Su-
preme Court (Michigan) held that the
brakeman had right to expect that such
obstacles would not be placed in so close
proximity to the track as to make them
dangerous. and that the railroad was liza
Bile for the injuries he received. phelps
rs. Chicago. etc, Railway Company, ST
Y. W. Rep. 66.)
The following circular. referring to 4 bill
or legal services performed for the city Of
irand Rapids. was held to be libelous per
e by the Supreme Court of Michigan in
he case Of Smedley as Soule (Sl4 N. w.
Rep. So: Does any citizen believe that
lie 1.-THE mayor did not have divvy in
he notorious fraudulent Smedley bill.
The notorious Smedley bill that
he mayor has included is one of the
tens the people are asked by him to bond
he city TO pay. 80 The court said
hat the plain inference from the article
S that the plaintiff and the mayor had
ntered into an agreement to defraud the
ity. and had agreed to divide between
hem the amount Of the bill that is al
owed: and that such conduct would be
and corrupt. II not criminal.
In an action on a forfeited bail bond the
ireties sought to avoid payment on the
round that the State, in attempting to
rrest the accused in another county.
iused him to conceal himself so that
ley We're unable to perform the condi-
ons OF their obligation and produce him.
nd that they were thereby released from
ability on the bOnd Rut tho Surname