The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-24
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
tco,Bbtfril Ernr,,.Iy for INC Ti,nes.l

| at one anotners death as would entitie th'
! survivor TO recover damages for the men
tai suffering alone. in the case OF West
! ern Union Telegraph Company rs. stein
bergen t5i $. W. Rep. 1921 father-in-laN
| was denied recovery for mental anguish
| on account of the absence OF the scn-in'
law at the death of his mother-ln law. re-
suiting from the company's failure to de-
| ilVer promptly telegram announcing the
| mother-in-law's illness. And in David
son VS.. Western Union Telegraph Com
| pany lib. S30l a son-in-law was not al
lowed to recover for mental anguish oc-
| casioned by not being able to attend MS
mother-in-law in her last moments. The
court said that ''the law does not presume
from this relationship alone such ties oil
affection as Will support such an action.
Selah-puc- ka- chez. an Indian girl, Ia
ta-pi-cha, an Indian brave, both Of the Sac
and Fox tribe. on the Indian reservation In
lama county Iowa and the superintendent
of the Indian school near Toledo. Tama
county. have been the principal actors IN
romance revealed by the legal proceed
ings before the United States District
Court of Iowa. Cedar Rapids division t9s
Fed. Rep, 1927. Selah-puc- ka -chee, while
at the Government Indian training school.
fell in love with Ta-ta-pi-cha and PROM
N'.sNhNtNN'
by other braves, succeeded in effecting the
escape of the girl from the school. and
they were married according to the Gus
toms Of their tribe. But the bride has
been returned TO the school. and her hus-
band now alleges that she is detained there
against her wishes. and petitioned for a
writ OF habeaS corpus to remove her. The
court decided that he was not entitled TO
writ of habeas corpus. but that the mar
Nrl. e. NNsal
troll, and that IL was for her 10 decide
whether or not she would remain at the
school or live with him.
In Nebraska. in constituting the Austria
liam ballot law. the Supreme Court in the
case of Mauck VS.. Brown tSi y. W. Rep.
313), holds, first. that it is essential that
the names OF two judges should be en-
dorsed on the back Of the ballots. end
that one name is not sufficient second.
that the cross need not be in the circle or
square. III the proper mark Is made, either
on the right or left OF and opposite to
the name OF a candidate. IL may indicate
the choice OF an eleetor. and on = straight
party ticket. II the cross is placed within
the space which contains the circle. al
though not within touching the latter.
it may suffice to indicate the intention OF
the voter: third, that an elector shall place
no mark upon his ballot by which 1t may
afterward be identified as the one voted by
him, and that he shall not make any
mark on the ballot except as directed in
the law.
The Australian ballot law has also been
lately considered by the Supreme Court of
Illinois. in the case of Kelly VS.. Adams
t55 N E. Rep. $50. They hold that bal
lot which is not endorsed on the back by
the initials of either judge of the cleo
tion should be rejected: and. further, that
a ballot showing pencil erasures of the
names OF certain candidates. instead of
cross opposite the names of candidates
for whom the voter desires to cast his bal
lot, bears such distinguishing marks as
will require its rejection.
Where grand jury is investigating brib-
cry charges the Supreme Court Of Indiana,
in the case of State VS.. Turley t5J y. F.
Rep, 30l, held that il may require a Wit
ness to testify TO all matters which will
aid it 10 return ar indictment upon legal
evidence: and all such testimony is 10 be
considered as touching a matter material
to the point in question, and. if false, such
witness is subject to prosecution for per-
jury. And il was further held that where
witness who could decline to answer
questions On The ground that 1t would
tend to crin1inate him. but. nevertheless.
voluntarily answers them. and his au-
swers are false. or partly false. he Is sub
iect to prosecution for perjury.
--
The English Court of Appeals holds. in
the case of Pemberton VS.. Hughes q Cb..
7Sn. that divorce obtained in Florida on
defective service Of process is, neverthe-
less. valid. The principle upon which the
decision proceeded was that the Florida
court undoubtedly possessed jurisdiction,
and that the fact that rule of procedure
had been violated was not fatal TO the ju-
letter written on a matter of business
stating that firm is withholding money
collected for and belonging to this com
pany. and that the criminal laws provide !
for their action and that payment has |
been demanded OF the amount they rob-
bed OF company funds in their posses |
sion." is held by the Circuit Court of APP |
peals of the United States for the Dis |
trict of Kentucky. in the case Of Mer- |
chants Insurance Company VS.. Buckner
t9s Fed. 222l to constitute a libel. and is
per Sc. And IL was further |
held that one who writes and mails a |
letter containing libelous matter is re- |
sponsible for such subsequent publication |
Of the libel as is the natural and probable
Of his own act in putting the
letter in circulation.
The fact that a person is intoxicated at /
he time he receives injuries from a fall
IN n sidewalk does not Of itself. holds the
supreme Court of Iowa. in the case OF
Sylvester VS.. Town of Casey Isl y. W.
Rep, 455). constitute evidence of contrib
ltory negligence. And it has been SINH
arly held by the Supreme Court of Wis
,onsin. in the case OF Ward vs.. Railway
% (55 n. W, I'D, that drunkenness is
lot negligence per Sc. nor unless il con
ributes to the accident or injury. IL it
lid not. then it is matter OF no conceIa
o the defendant"
In Ohio judge-elect may practice law
until he has actually entered upon his
judicial duties. The Supreme Court OF
hat State has recently so decided in the
.ase OF Ohio eN rel W. W. Savage vs.. Jo-
eph Hidy.
The Supreme Court OF Massachusetts. In
he case of Cowley VS.. O'Connell t5t N L.
,ep. 55sD, has held that the aiding abet-
ing, and counselirg another by an attor-
icy of law in an attempt to bride city
ncer In matters relating to his official
elton is evidence tnat the attorney at-laW
as ceased to be of that coed moral char
cter required by the statute for admission
o the bar, and court has jurisdiction to
ishar him: and. further. that proof that
II attorney appeared for both plaintiff and
efendant In action. involving the same
ssue. warrants his diSbarment. This de-
ision wilt be received with satisfaction by
n the members OF the profession who de-
ire to eieEhte and maintain a high moral
tandard among the bar. although il is
opposed by some of the recent cases.
hitch hold that an attorney cannot be dis
AIRED unless he has been convicted Of a