The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-08-18
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

the school board to ascertain whether a
child is white or negro The question OF
what persons of mixed blood shall be coz
sidered negroes and what white Is settled
BY this declaration of the statute: Every
person having one-fourth or more OF negro
blood shall be deemed coiored person.
IN the case of Embark VS. Boughton it
was sought to nandamus the school tres
tees TO compel them to admit the son OF
the plaintiff to white school. The trial
court awarded the writ of mandamus b,t
the Supreme Court OF Appeals reversed MS
Judgment, holding that mandamus was rot
the proper remedy. as the school trustees
under the statute, were called on to exsr-
else judicial discretion in deciding upon thu
color OF particular applicant. and in such
case mandamu5 does not lie. The REMEDY
OF the party dssrieved by the action of the
school trustees. the court held. was 10 sp-
peal to the county superintendent
restaurant-keeperi in Spokane. Wash.
VINO imported and sold quail which had
eeen lawfully killed in Missouri, was in
aicted under a Washington statute for
Diddlng OF the sale Of quail in that State at
any time OF the year. II was contepded
that this statute applied as well to quail
killed in Missouri as in Washington. and
that the object Of the statute was to make
1t easier to enforce the game laws But
the United States Circuit Court of Wash
ington held that the Legislature Of one
State did not have the constitutional power
TO prohibit traffic In game imported from
another State. and that the statute was
therefore void. Mere rules of con-
venience," said the court. (which inter-
fere with traffic between States. and which
are not necessary as means of self-defence.
are void. because they enter within the
domain OF the power committed by the ma
tional Constitution to the National Govern
ment."
An interesting case is decided By the Su
preme Court Of Ohio, in which 1t is held
that when married woman is named as a
beneficiary in policy OF insurance on the
life OF her husband. she is entitled to the
proceeds OF the policy. Notwithstanding a
divorce obtained by her before his death
The court said: LENA Overhiser was
named in the policy as the beneficiary. and
the words. wife Of George P. Ovsrhissr'
were descriptive only. The policy defines
IN express terms the only condition upon
which 1t should be payable to the ad-
ministrator of George P. Overhiser. viz,
tnat Lena should not be living at the time
oil his DEATH. contains no terms indi-
eating that her right to the fruits OF the
policy is conditional upon her remaining
his wife Tae policy was executed TO him.
ard the presumption is that it was upon
his application. But. If the insurance was
effected by her, she had at the time an
insurable interest in his life. and the con-
tract would not become void BY the ter
mination of the marital relation before his
death"
The word "favorite" has been held by
the New York Supreme Court. appellate
division. in the case Of Cooke & Cobb Co..
30 be incapable Of becoming the subject
OF an exclusive proprietary right Is
trademark The question arose in suit
between TWO companies that used the
word in reference TO invoice files which
they manufactured. The court said: 1t
does not indicate either ownership or
origin of the goods Of the plaintiff 1t is
only an adjective which. il descriptive OF
anything, refers to quality. Anyone is
entitled to describe the articles manu-
featured and sold by him as being favorite,
or desirable. or superior. or unrivaIed. or
peerless, If he chooses to do so. The ad-
jectives of the English language are the
common property OF all who speak and
write 1t. There may be such a co.nbina-
ton CT words as would entitle a person to
the use Of that adjective in that combina-
ton, where there Is an arbitrary and
fanciful designation. But the
word 'faVorite.' even In combination with
the words best and cheapest, indicates
nothing but an owners appreciation OF the
value or quality of the article or mer-
ehandise he offers for sale to the public
An instruction to the jury that Elf
party has in his possession evidence
touching the matter in controversy, and
such evidence is not produced before the
jury. the jury has right to assume that
such evidence would be damaging to the
party who fails to produce the evidence
was held by the Supreme Court of South
Dakota to be erroneous on the ground that
it was an intimation on the part of the
court that evidence had been withheld
which should have been given to the jury.
and this without qualification. whether it
was innoeentiy or willfuily withheld.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in
the case of Smith VS.. State in which the
defendant was a negro. followed a recent
decision OF the Supreme Court of the
United States. and held that the exclusion
Of negroes, on account CT their color, from
the grand jury which indicted one OF
their race. is a denial to him of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment Of the United
States Constitution.
The legal liabilities existing between per-
sons who engage in a joint business ven
ture which is afterward abandoned have
been defined by the Supreme Court OF
louisiana The court holds that where
TWO persons agree to share the profits and
losses of an enterprise upon the basis OF
which contemplate a certain ex-
Denditure of time and money, and II IS
hereafter discovered that without fault on
either side, so much more time and money
will be required than was contemplated as
10 render the enterprise of doubtful sue
,ess from the point OF view from which it
was undertaken, tie one has no claim
against the other for damages. because the
after declines to go on after such dis
,overy. The court further holds that the
osses in such case should be equally di-
-jfed. but an action will not lie for the re-
overy Of a particular item of expenditure
II disbursement. and the partner claiming
balance upon settlement of the whols
transaction must establish the credits
laimed by him with reasonable certainty.
In the case of Cruikshank VS.. Press Pub
ishlng Company, recently before the New
FORK Supreme Court. special term. on
notion to strike out part of the answer
Il the defendant as irrelevant and re-
undant. Justice Gaynor, in granting the
notion. severely criticised the ''unseien-
iic and degenerate pleadings" of which
he present case he said was a sample, and
which, he continued, had grown to be
ommon. to the great perplexity and an
ioyance Of trial judges. 1t takes a tedious
,erusal of them at the trial. he said, ito
ind out what they mean. or, as is most
Usual, that they mean nothing" The de-
endant. which is the publisher of the
World was sued by the plaintiff for
evidence Introduced in a di-