The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-14
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


Rep, 2D. holds that the true test is
whether there was in the minds OF the par
lies to the transaction an Intention in good
faith to purchase the property. and to
secure bona ide transfer aud an actual
delivery thereof to the purchaser; and they
also hold that a valid contract for the fu-
ture delivery of wheat even though not ia
the possession Of the seller. may tie ente ell
into and such contract would be upon he
same plane as any other legal obligau
for the sale and delivery of any spe les OF
personal property. In applying thee In
ciples to the present case. the couIt.was OF
the opinion that the contract was based n
wagering contract, and therefore void
and uncomfortable as being contrary TO
public policy.
The late Mr.. Justice William O'Bgin
bequeathed to the community OF Jesuits Ia
Dublin his valuable library; but the Ro-
man Catholic emancipation act 90 Geo. w.
c. y continues on the statute book. ard
under a decision delivered by the IRISH
master Of the rolls the legacy comes within
the prohibition relating to religious orders
bound by monastic or religious VOWS con-
tanned in said act, and is therefore yO.d
(35 L. j., 20s).
large mercantile corporation. one OF
whose stockholders and directors was the
owner OF vessel. advertised through the
newspapers, and by means Of signs placed
on the vessel while in port. that she was
operated by the corporation. and would be
despatched by il on voyage for the car
riage OF freight and passengers. the stand
ing OF the corporation presumably iniiuenc-
ing passengers and shippers to some ez-
tent to patronize the vessel On the voy
age the vessel was lost and thirty-fOur OF
the passengers and three OF the crew were
drowned. Held by the District Court ID.
Washington, n. D., The Jane Grey. 80
Fed. Rep, 5s2) that the corporation could
not escape liability as an owner by show
ing that it. in fact. had no interest in the
vessel or voyage.
Where there is direct evidence of the
circumstances of an accident the Supreme
Court Of Illinois. in Chicago and Alton
Railway Company vs.. Pearson Csc n. f.
Rep, 633). held that proof of habits of
persons is not admissible; and where. a.
in this case, the deceased was seen by
considerable number OF persons just be-
fore the accident. the general question
whether or not he was a drinking man
was improper. as direct proof as TO whether
he was under the influence Of liquor at the
time Of the accident could have been OBJ
tanned. When one. by reason Of his own
voluntary intoxication. exposes himself to
danger. and receives injuries which he
could. and by the exercise Of ordinary pru-
dence would have avoided II sober. the
Court OF Errors and Appeals of New Jer-
sey in Bageard VS.. Consolidated Traction
Company As Alt Rep. SOD held that be
is guilty of contributory negligence. and
cannot recover for injuries received.
ghoI ht- he
World Publishing Company of Omaha.
Neb.. against the Bee Publishing Company
of the same city has been recently decided
by the Supreme Court of Nebraska tBee
Pub. Co. VS.. World Pub Co. 50 y. w.
Rep. 2s) in favor of the former. The libel
complained of consisted of an article print
ed in two editions OF the Omaha Daily
Bee" which asserted with much detail
and ornamentation" that the World Her
aid" had been maintaining for some time
a precarious existence; that it was no
longer able to meet its financial obliga-
tions; that it was lettering. bankrupt, and
about to pass out of existence. The court
held that this language was libelous per
Sc. and affirmed a judgment for $4,000
damages against the Bee Publishing Com
pany.
Where a verdict is reached by each juror
secretly writing down the amount he
judged the plaintiff entitled to. and then
calculating the average Of such amounts.
it being understood by each juror. before
the amounts were set down, that the aver
age so obtained should be the amount of
damages TO be awarded the plaintiff, the
Supreme Court OF South Dakota, in Long
VS. Collins (S2 y. ". Rep. 81. holds that
such a verdict is chance verdict and in
valid.
Proof Of slanderous remarks made to
third parties by defendant in breach Of
promise case, as a reason for his breaking
his engagement and refusing to marry the
plaintiff. are held by the Supreme Court OF
Michigan in Roberts vs.. Druillara tS2
n W Rep. Az. to be admissible on the
part OF the plaintiff for the purpose OF
showing that the defendant acted in a ma
Hcious. revengeful spirit toward her. but
that the plaintiff cannot recover full dam
ages for these ISLANDERS in a suit for breach
OF promise. as if in action for defamation.
Where a person obtains merchandise
frauduleutly by impersonating another, and
pledges and secures loan on the meT-
chandise from q pawnbroker. and the cir
cumstances are such as to put the pawn
broker on enquiry. the Supreme Court OF
a
Rep. 43Ol holds that the pawnbrOker IS
liable TO the owner OF the goods notwith-
standing the fact that the party who
pledged the goods stole them OF got them
| by false pretences.
The city of New Orleans having the IN
doubted right and authority to estab ish
markets for public health and convenience.
the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the
u. KranTV l2I
Rep. BAD holds that the city has the
authority. for the protection OF its lessees,
TO pass an auxiliary ordinance prohibiting
persons from selling at or near the mar
kets products which are sold in the same.
Fish. fresh frozen. or packed in ice,
caught in the Great Lakes or other fresh
waters by citizens Of the United States.
are admitted free Of duty under the act OF
Congress of July "a 1897; but the United
States Federal Court. n. D.. New York, in
Lake Ontario Fish Company VS. United
States (gg Fed. Rep. 55D. holds that the
provision does not apply to fish caught BY
citizens of Canada in the employ Of a New
York corpora ton Il was argued that a
corporation can only act through its agents
and the fish in question being caught by ITS
employees, were constructively caught by
the corporation, but the court said that fish
entitled to free entry must be caught by
citizens OF the United States actually en-
gagged.
Where the son Of a county judge is car
rving on litigation in the court Of his
father on a contingent fee. the Supreme
Court of South Dakota. in Vine VS.. Jones
(s2 y. w. Rep. So holds that his father
is disqualified to hear and determine the
questions in such litigation.
,t.t,o,,,b M snacIal damages are proved.