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

]
we case OF The People * rel Liable vs.
{ District Court o. Lake County AS L. r. A..
sou, decided by the Supreme Court of COL
orado. is OF peculiar irterest IN. - be
questions in this case was whether an n
Junction could be granted 20 restrain gau,-
ping IN the city Of Leadyil.e be ause 81 tts
. I coirupung and vicious Influences ana It's
ue'eFioIaung effects upon the morals q
the community. The injunction was asked
, for IN the district court and was granted
b Whereupon the defendants auuIfed To the
supreme Court for a writ Of Prohibition
y TO restrain the district court from, mo
ceedinE with the suit and the supreme
court issued the writ against the District
Court.
. The original suit was begun in the Dis
trict Court by Mrs. Mary Henderson. Pres
ident OF the Leadville 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 citv:
mat she is the mother Of two bows now
reaching manhood and is interested IN
their moral welfare. that she is the Presi-
dent OF the Leadvilie branch OF the Won
ans Christian Temperance Uniou. an or
ganization having for It's object among
other things. the preservation and proteC-
ton OF the morals ard character Of the
people Of Leadylle; that said organlz Ia
ton has a reading room in said city. ard
mat the unlawful practices complained Of
are being committed within few doors
a its reading room. that the population o.
said city is composed Of men, women. and
children, aggregatirg about 10 GOO: that Il
is TO her interest that said city be rae
so FAR as possible. a peaceable. low
ing. and Order-abiding community. 10 he
end that the husbands and fathers may not
Z be led astray by the uula wful devices and
practices carried on bv the defendants,
. and that her moral and financial interests
may be protected.
I II was conteuded that as the District
I Court was vested with jurisdiction to issue
/ inlunctiOns. 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 conten-
| ton and held that an injunction could cot
/ issue 10 prevent a criminal act merely be-
/ cause il is criminal and when il iu 10 way
l violates a property or civil right. a1l as
/ this case failed 10 disclose any sum special
l injury to Mrs. Henderson as woulI iueti-
[ fy her 10 maintaining this It'i0n. or any
injury that is not common to III euitrs
community. and fails 10 show that any
property rights are injured the injunction
should not have been allowed Ne now
Of no case in the books said the court.
where a similar peFver-i1n OF justice
has occurred. where slcu an Vi warranted
abuse Of the process Of iljuuatiOu has been
perpetrated as was fh-ea5ru. in this case
I'm the District Court"
In granting the injuneti ton The ludzs OF
the District Court said: IF q be true ttat
no direct precedent can be found. it IS time
mat one should be created: and as Murat
declared himself 90 be his own ancestor.
this court will be its own precedent 1t
is time the Increased use Cl iuiun.t Ons n
certain directions should at least he so ex-
tended that relief may be afford in c5zeE
like this
In commenting upon The expression %
the lower judge. the Supreme Court said.
Whether the ancestor was proud Of his
offspring, or the maker Of this Drece ielL
is entitled 70 the credit for it's creation IS
not strictly a IeEal question. W. can only
add that this remarkable declaration must
speak for itself" a Iet',i0u i0l a Ienear-
ing was denied.
Communications made 70 a letter carrier
and knowledge 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 Stsl not TO be privi-
legged so as 70 excuse him from testifying
thereto as a witness in an action for
divorce. The witness was asked II ne had
not delivered letters addressed 20 Mrs.
Smith. II she had not requested him not
70 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 al 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
ground that he was and Is an official Of
the United States G0-erumert iu the ca