The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-16
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

The case OF Kammermayer VS.. Hilz. re-
Gently before the Supreme Court Of Wis
consin (s2 N. ". Rep, ss9), presents the
rather novel spectacle Of father and
daughter liugating about their respective
rights to money which was paid TO the
father by the seducer OF the daughter In
settlement OF an action for seduction.
Under the law both father and daughter
are entitled to damages. and at the time
OF the settlement OF the original action, as
the daughter was a minor. the father as
her natural guardian, took the share given
to the daughter. The purpose of the suit
was to ascertain how much that share was
| In recent appeal before the Supreme
Court of North Carolina. in a case OF muir
| der, one of the errors assigned was that
during the trial the jury. with the con-
sent of the prisoner. attended church,
where the preacher in his sermon re-
ferred TO the case, saying: There are men
here who have in their hands the life Of
poor man now on trial. You ought to
De careful, and II ne Is guilty say so.
and II he is not guilty say so. Do your
duty before God and your country" and
in his prayer the preacher said: Now.
Lord, we are going to offer a special pe--
tition to thee that this jury may give
say SO. and If not guilty say So The
court held that this did not constitute
| error, but said: 1T would have been, of
course, propriety for the man Of God to
| have made no reference to a matter which
| the laws of his country had entrusted to
the unbiased decision OF jury. but it Is
| Impossible to find in the above anything
which was prejudicial to the prisoner. In
| view OF the occurrence 1t would be well,
! hnUovor for RI al fudu har IN
avoid giving similar opportunity for COM
plant So far as the record APP
| pears the minister's appeal has been an
| swered and the prisoner has had the fair
| trial which the laws Of his country guar
anteed him.
The question whether cigars and tobacco
are drugs is decided by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, in the case Of
Commonwealth VS.. Goldsmith t57 N. E.
Rep, 212). The case was a complaint
against the defendant for doing business.
namely, selling cigars and tobacco, on the
Lords day." in violation Of a statute
prohibiting all business transactions ex-
cept the retail sale Of drugs and medi-
cines. On the trial defendant admitted
that he sold the articles, but contended
that he sold them as drugs. He offered
to show that when the witness asked for
the cigars and tobacco he tthe defendan)
said, II will sell them to you as drugs.
and that the witness, after he got them,
said, Il propose to use them as evidence"
and that the defendant then said Il can
not help what you want them for; sold
them to you as drugs The defendant
offered to show by experts that tobacco
and cigars are drugs. The Supreme Court,
however, held that they were not drugs
within the meaning of the provision of the
statute.
Like many other things which are ar
ticles Of commerce." said the court, land
are prepared for other than medicinal use,
they contain an ingredient or element
which, in broad sense, may be called a
drug, but as ordinarily prepared and sold
they are not themselves drugs" But the
court held that sale made in good faith
upon an application for tobacco to be used
as medicine may be within the above--
quoted language of the statute.
On trial for criminal libel in writing
scurrilous letters anonymously, the de-.
PENDANT introduced the writing OF third
person to prove. by comparison, that the
letters were written by this person and
not by himself but the court, on motion
Of the prosecuting attorney, took the
writing from the consideration Of the jury
because an expert witness on handwriting
testified that there was no resemblance
between 1t and the libelouS letters On
appeal the Supreme Court (California)-
held that the action Of the lower court
constituted error.
In a case involving a comparison of
different writings" said the court, "the
ordinary individual can frequently arrive
at conclusion quite as correct as that OF
the most skilled expert in handwriting,
where. as in this case. the exi
pert testified that there was no resem-.
blance or similarity. The jury,
therefore, should have been permitted to
pass upon the question of the resemblance
or similarity of 1.-THE writings) and form
their own conclusion in reference to such
similarity or resemblance. AS it was, the
expert witness was substituted for the
jury in passing upon this question of fact
under consideration People VS.. Storke,
60 Pac. Rep, 1090)
The surface OF mineral lands may be
owned by one person, and the nike al
underneath by another. each with an inds-
feasible title: and when so owned the SUI
preme Court of Utah Tin Smith We. Jo-es.
so Pac. Rep, 100 holds that they consti-
tute separate corporeal heredi aments. with
all the incidents of separate ownership,
and the surface land may be paItitioned TIE
same as where there is no mineral under it.
By ordnance IN Denver, COL. SalooD.
keepers are prohibited keeping a wine ron
or other place into which q female shall be
permitted to enter fer the puIplse Of driak-
ing. Under this statute a saloonkes per.
who was also the proprietor Of restaurant
which was situated across the hall from s
saloon, served wine from the saloon TO
women in the restaurant. II was contend
cd that he was guilty of violating the o1ti.
nance. But the Supreme Court held that
the ordinance was not intended to embrace
u case where liquor was ser, ed from a ga
loon in rooms in which a separate re5tad-
rant business was carried on. although t1e
proprietor of the restaurant and saloon was
the same. There was no attempt to Pro-
hibit the drinking OF intoxicating liquor by
said the court, nor its sale or
service to them, except in certain locdli-
ty. 1t was the prohibited locality whi1h
constituted the defence" (C!ty OF Denver
vs.. Comedian. 60 Pac. Rep. 100 The sa-
loonkeeper is an enterprising individual.
or ladies entrance and as fast as one
is effectually closed another is opened.
A police officer at the Pine Ridge Indian
in South Dakota, is held by the
Supreme Cc':rt of the United States. in the
case of John Bad Elk VS.. United States go
Sup. CT. Rep, 1921 not to have authority
to arrest resident on such reservation
without a warrant, on charge OF a mis-.
demeanor. not committed in his presence.
In this case John Bad Elk one day fired
a couple of shots from his gun just for
fun as he said. For this his arrest was
ordered and two days after two policemen
called at his house without a warrant 10
arrest him. He told them that he would
go with them the following morning.
whereupon. according to the defendant. one
NJ the officers made a motion as IL to