The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-03
LATE EEsAL DECISIONS.
COMPETED 4rp,sl.lr Tor The rmes.,

V'V"P"eo AfPiNtstU Iof Inc fbacs-p
The rule swell established that the
courts Of the United States have no juris-
diction upon the subject Of DIVORCE, and II
has been decided by the Supreme Court OF
the United States, in the case OF Sims vs..
Sims. that 1t cannot review an appeal from
decree of divorce from Territorial
court, as the matter is not one the value
OF which can be estimated in money. 1t
holds. however in the case that decree
Tor alimony and counsel fees may be ap-
pealed from the supreme court of Terri
tory 10 the Supreme Court of the United
States on the ground that such decree,
although in one sense an incident to the
suit for divorce, is distinct and seyerable
final judgment in favor of the defendant
for sum Of money of sufficient juris-
dictional amount.
A resolution Of the Legislature directing
the Board Of State Auditors to investigate
the claim Of innocence of Thomas Allen,
who alleged that he had served nine years
in prison under wrongful conviction, and
II they found, said claim TO be true, to
allow him sum not to exceed $40 a month
Tor time not more than ten years, has
been held unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court Of Michigan in the case Of
| Allen VS.. Board of State Auditors IS bet.
Leg. News 1921. The grounds OF the de-
cision were first that the Legislature had
no power to establish court Of appeals
aside from the constitutional courts, to de-
termine the guilt or innocence Of one con-
victed OF crime; second, that the pay
| ment OF money to one convicted of crime
is an appropriation Of the public money for
purely private purpose within the mean
ing OF section OF the constitution requir-
ing two-thirds vote OF the Legislature,
and this resolution did not receive a two
thirds vote; third, that the Jurisdiction
| conferred on the Board of State Auditors
to pass upon claims means claims that
have some legal basis, and the present de-
mand has not the semblance OF any legal
claim. The court expressed disapproval OF
the policy Of permitting persons who claim
TO have been wrougfully convicted and i'm
prisoned TO have their claim considered by
board or commissioner, and TO be COM
pensated IL found innocent. THE bare
statement OF the proposition" said the
court. lis enough to condemn it as uncon-
stitutionai, and bad in law, morals, and
equity THE Legislature) cannot
authorize the board to consider requests,
petitions. or claims for appropriations
which are merely gratuities or which may
be based upon sentimental or moral
grounds The case OF Roberts. recently
decided by the Court of Appeals OF New
York. involved a similar question TO the
present. and although the court. on the
special facts in that case, denied Roberts
any recovery. it commented on the absence |
of general statute in this country allow
ing compensation to person wrongfuiiy |
convicted. and expressed the opinion that |
justice and equity seemed o demand a
statute of such character.
Where a libel published by newspaper |
concerning candidate for judge, IS circu- |
lated outside the judicial district. the Su- !
preme Court OF Iowa, in the case of State
VS.. Hoskins $50 N W. Rep. 1869. holds that |
Il is not privileged communication. and |
on a criminal prosecution the defendants |
belief in its truth affords him no protection. |
In this case newspaper printed at Buena
Vista, Iowa, charged the candidate for ire
office Of judgedof the district court with
having fraudulentiy altered public record.
On the trial one of the arguments Of the
publisher was that the communication was
made in the discharge of duty on his part
to make known to the electors OF the dis
trict The character OF the judicial cln1i-
date, and was. therefore, a privileged coS1-
The jury brought in yerG.ct
of guilty and the supreme court on appeal
affirmed the judgment, saying, in part, that
IL appeared from the detenaants own tes-
t,mony tnat ne voluntarily puo.sneo une
ensise hot ons oesioe Tue luoicisi us
.rlet, out OUTSIDE tne state; mus making
khoWn 10 persons VINO were IN no way in-
terested in the judicial election"
Where deed puFports on lis face to have
been executed siAty-four years ago. and
the registration mark thereon also indi-
'a'e' 40 age anu lneie arc no suspicious
circumstances TO impeach 1t, the Court OF
cnancery Appears OF tennessee IN the case
Oh Perry Ciift % 5. W. I'D, holds that
II is admissible as an ancient paper with
out proof oil a subscribing witness, or by
-ertincate Oh PROBATE.
,.. -, -
Intoxicating hqeois eah'o. pe carried :
10 church in Georgia, even though taken {
here to be used in case Of a sudden at !
lack NJ Illness Tho sun-eme Court NJ
-bat state hae recer,Iv 60 docidod In 80 ,
,ase ~ pire We STAT. le4 c p.n 900, =
rhe Penal code nositixeIy forhids any nor c
.on from carving m a church or o;her !
,Ioca ubara tha noo,Ia have ass.,nhIsd n
~ diviro worshin apv Ii,uor tn a.
ondar, In ,h;s cosa ,onl ~ chr-ob a hot.
Ia on whisky which he lest in his hugsv )
wo hundred yards from, ,ho h,iISirg ana t
n defence stated .bat he had been ad- t
~ iseu Wy pns srS.su 70 .sAe ! ''Ions ioF
,ase. But the court held that the statute !
vas mandatory, and that the defendant i
lad violated the law. Il
c.se ,,vo,ving tho ousstior ,s .,
,hot s,h;.c,. az. ,rc,rda5 ,naor ,h -
- -,
h'eien.aiS .'0" mas oeeh ienoNeu 4,
" the LONDON scnool board TO the a
Queens Bench Division t34 Law Jour !;
al 666) for the purpose of reviewing the !.