The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-08
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
| merchant who gives to des.gna ed
class of customers an opportunity to So.
cure by means OF a "nickeI-siot trade ma,
chine any article of value additional "a
that for which such customers have paid
! is held by the Supreme Court OF Georgia,
in the case of Meyer vs. State 49, S. E,
Rep. 96J, to violate the statute which de-
clares that no person STALL keep. main.
tain. employ, or carry On any lottery ID
this State or other scheme or device foy
the hazarding Of any money or valuable
thing. The accused was wholesale and
retail dealer in cigars and chewing gum.
On the day alleged In tn, accusation he
was operating ''nickel-slot trade ma.
chine" The manner Of the operation Of
the machine is as follows nickel 10
placed in the slot. a handle is pulled
down. g wheel within the machine re-
wolves and when Ii comes to stop the
number Of cards constituting hand in
a game Of poker are exhibited. The per-
son depositins the nickel Is entitled to .
cigar or package of chewing gum, each
valued at cents. and, in addition there
to, prize. according to the hand dis.
played. The court held that the device
violated the statute On the ground that
ANY scheme or device operated by per-
son by which one participating therein
might either lose the money invested or
get more than his moneys worth. the
operator retaining the money SO lost, il
scheme or device for the hazarding of
money 1t was commended that the
scheme was not within the meaning OF
the statute. because it imposed no risk
whatever upon the customer, the whole
risk being assumed by the accused. But
the court held that in order to constitute
game of hazard or a bet 1t was not nee
essary that there must be risk in both
parties. II. from the terms Of the engage
ment, the court held one Of the parties
may gain but cannot lose, and the other
may lose but cannot gain. and there must
be either a gain by the one or loss by the
other, according to the happening of the
contingency. 1t Is as much a bet or wager
as II the parties had shared equally the
chance of gain and loss.
The United States Circuit Court of Ap-
peals has no Jurisdiction OF cases OF con-
viction Of capital crime. according 10 the
Circuit Court of Appeals in the case OF
Good Shot VS.. United States 104 Fed. Rep,
ESQ. and the court holds that the test
which determines whether or not case is
one of conviction of capital crime is no:
the penalty which is actually imposed. but
it Is that which may be imposed
Under statute in Mississippi. providing
a penalty for getting on or off moving
train, but especially exempting passengers
and train employees from its operation. I
passenger was arrested by direction of the
railway company for getting off train Of
the Alabama and Vicksburg Railway Com
pany while it was n owing He brought
siit against the road for false imprison-
nent and obtained verdict of $500. which
The Supreme Court sustained. alabama
md vicksburg Railway Company VS.. Kuhn.
IS So. Rep, 1919
While walking along railway COM
oany's right of way. which was generally
Ised by pedestrians. man was injured
by piece OF stone. which was hurled
against him by passing train. This stone
constituted part OF the ballast OF the
rack and was dislodged and thrown
lgainst the man by the movement of the
rain. The injured party brought suit
gainst the railroad company on the
round that the company owed him the
Iuty of SO placing the material used in
Iallssting its track that 1t would not be
brown against him In the manner stated
,ut the Supreme Court (Georgiab held that
e could not recover. saying. in part: Ger
ainiy it cannot be claimed that, under
he facts appearing, II was incumbent on
he railway company. relatively to the
laintiff's protection from injury, to exer-
Use more than ordinary diligence. The
isIodgn ent of the stone was mere cas-
atty. Other trains had passed over the
pot where it lay without disiodging il
-om its place. and even under the theory
nat the company was under any DUTY at
II of protecting pedestrians from being
ljured as the plaintiff was, II would at
asst have to appear that the company was
anting in ordinary care and prudence as
the manner in which its track was bal
,sted and kept IN order. II would be
Ding a great length to hold that such
1eory was good law in any case, for rail-
ay companies can hardly be expected TO
1nstruct or maintain their roadbeds with
view to protecting people who choose.
ven permissively. to walk along rights OF
ay. from such catastrophe as that which
appened in the present instance" tClar-
y VS.. Southern Railway Company, 81 S. E
ep., $50
The sale without a license of medici-
al preparation capable of being used as
beverage, and which contains such
ercentage OF alcohol as that. IL drunk
excess. it will produce intoxication, is
I'D by the Supreme Court of Georgia, in
~ case of Colweli vs.. State t31 S. E. Rep,
81. to be unlawful. within the meaning
statute prohibiting the sale without
License of "spirituous, malt, or any in
xioating liquors or bitters,' whether the
,ndor in making the sale intended that IL
Iould be used as medicine or otherwise.
ID without reference to the purpose for
.zlxs, H1,,n ht hy-t ta ho
While il is not competent to impeach
tness by proving that he has led life
moral turpitude or has been guilty
immoral acts. the Supreme Court Of
,orgia. In the case of Wheeler VS..
ate f37 s. E. Rep. 1860, holds that a
rness whose own testimony disclosed
nt such are the facts with respect to
life and conduct may be thereby dis
edited, the jury being left free TO de-
mine for itself what weight and eff
t should be given to such facts.
N a case OF murder the Court of Ap-
ais of Kentucky, in the case of Bishop
Commonwealth (5S S. ". Rep. SID,
Ids that it is not improper for the
,secutins attorney in arguing the case
the jury, to refer to the defendant
murderer and an assassin
Whether he was a murderer and an as
'sin," said the court, was the very
sstion which was on trial; and we do
consider it improper for the District
.orney in the course Of his argument to
Ike statement to the jury which
ounted to nothing more or less than
) expression of his opinion that de-
dant was guilty"
Where in a political convention the pre-