The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-10
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

| David S. Sage and wife, Of st. Clair
| County. ILL.,. were killed in a storm four
| years ago. Their bodies were found ly-
| ing side by side Mr.. Sage left one daugh-
| ter as the only lineal heir. In a suit for
| settlement of the estate the question
| arose as to which had died first Mr. or
Mrs. Sage. II Sage, then his wife's rela-
tives would be entitled to her award II
his wife died first. then her relatives
would be entitled to nothing and the
whole estate. amounting to 1000. would
fall to Miss Sage. the daughter. There
was no way OF proving which had died
first, and the court held that since woman
is physically weaker than man 1t would
be presumed that Mrs. Sage died first.
and on this hypothesis awarded the es-
tate to the daughter.-The Law Register.
In an action for Islander the Court of
Appeals Of Indian Territory. in the case
OF Brooks VS.. Collier (5s s. w Rep. 1851.
hold that there can be no joinder OF plain
tins: and that where a verdict has Teen
rendered In favor Of Joint plaintiffs 1t
was erroneous. and cannot be amended
by striking from the complaint the name
OF one Of the plaintiffs and RENTING one
half Of the verdict. In this case the suit
was brought by two brothers. who alleged
that the facts complained of applied alike
to both. The jury gave them a verdict
for $500 damages. In their opinion the
court said in part: There can be. from
the very nature Of things. no joint damage
to the character Of individuals.
How could court or jury determine the
amount Of damages sustained by each and
both Of the plaintiffs Jointly? We know
that the temperament and character Of
persons capable of being injured ere as
diverse as the color and value of dia-
monds; that a Islander which would crush
weak. highly sensitive man, would fall
harmless at the feet Of a strong, self
reliant one
A child three years old has the right to
play in the street. holds the New York Su-
preme Court, Appellate Division. In the
case of Kennedy VS.. Hills Bros. Co. (66 n.
Y. Supp. 2S0). and. If injured while there,
neither it nor its parents can be held guilty
of contributory negligence. In this case
the child was attended by its eight-year-
old sister and there was no evidence as to
the degree Of care that the sister exer-
cised. 1T is true said the court, that
the accident did not happen on a cross
walk but the child had the right to be
playing in the street. and. being non sui
juris. cannot be charged with its own neg
ligence to defeat the action. Neither does
1t make any difference that there was no
proof as to the conduct Of the older sister.
for. on tine authorities cited, IL was not
negligence per Sc on the part OF the parent
to permit the child to go unattended upon
the public street; and the fact that the
deceased was sent out in the care OF the
older sister does not require any proof of
any care upon her part"
Deputy sheriES are not competent to
serve on a jury. holds the Supreme Court
of Indiana in the case OF Yaf VS.. State
(5S y. E. Rep. ~. and where two Of the
jurors on a criminal trial were deputy
sheriffs. having been called as talesmen to
complete the jury. the court held that
new trial should be granted. Although
their official position could have been dis
covered when they were examined as to
their qualifications the court held that
counsel were not bound to anticipate that
taIesmen would be called from among the
sheriffs deputies. and that it was the duty
Of these men to have disclosed the rela-
tionship on the general examination as to
their competency. The reason given by
the court for its decision was that the
sheriff is Paid a salary, but inasmuch as
the county does not pay this salary except
out of the fees earned and collected the
sheriff has a clear pecuniary interest in
securing conviction in criminal cases. since
no judgment for costs can be rendered
against the State. The deputies. there
fore. stood in the position of employees of
one who was pecuniarily interested in their
verdict
On criminal trial in Indiana the lower
court refused to allow a witness to testify,
on the ground that he had violated an or
der excluding the witnesses from the
court room and had heard some OF the tes-
timony. On appeal the Appellate Court
held that the action of the lower court
constituted reversible error; that while the
witness by the violation of the order of the
court would render himself liable for con-
tempt. the State could not by his migcon-
duct alone be deprived of his testimony
The true rule. the court held is that where
a party Is without fault. and witness dis
obeys an orGer directing a separation of
witnesses. the party shall not be denied
the right of having the witness testify. but
the conduct of the witness may go to the
jury upon the question of his credibility.
Estate VS.. David. 5S n. E. Rep, S3.)
The action of the governing authorities
of a political party in declaring a certain
person to be the nominee of the party fer
Congress is held by the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky. in the case of Moody vs.
Trimble (5S 5. W. Rep. 500. to be con-
elusive, and will not be reviewed by the
courts.
4 boy eleven years of age was perma-
nently injured while playing on a railroad
tgrntable in Texas. 1t seems that he and
other children were in the habit OF put
ting the turntable i'll motion and riding
thereon. and that this custom was known
to the railroad company, which had a rule