The times., 1900-12-29
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


The question as to whether sheriff
| is liable on his Official bond IL he negIi-
gently permits a mob to secure a pris-
| oner in his custody and lynch him was
recently decided in the affirmative by
the Appellate Court of Indiana in the ap-
peal OF Jenkins (5S N E. Rep. 5eo). The
| court said that it was undisputed that a
sheriff is bound to AXE ordinary care of
property and is liable for a failure In that
regard. and that there certainly could be
no reason for saying that his duty as
to care is not at least equally obligatory
in respect to prisoner in his custody.
The duty the sheriff owes to the State"
said the court. ito keep prisoner COM
mitted to his custody and deliver him
over to tie proper authority at the proper
time IS no more compulsory than is the
uuty ne owes the prisoner himself to ex-
ercise reasonable and ordinary care to
protect the prisoners life and health. II
ne permits a prisoner to escape or to be
taken from his custody the fault is prima
facie his, and there has been prima facie
breach of official duty. for which he is
liable ON his official bond
After the Democratic party In Colorado
had made the usual nominations for a
Presidential election last fall, another
party nominated a county ticket under
the name Of Bryan Democratic Party
fhe regular DeIsssTat5 protested against
the latter ticket on the ground that 1t
tended to deceive the voters. The lower
court overruled the protest, bu. on ap-
peal the Supre ne Court reversed the
hot thz
Democratic Party" might lead voters to
believe that the straight Democratic
ticket was meant, and thus create decep-
ton and confusion. The lower Judge who
heard the case was candidate for re-
nomination on the Bryan Democratic
Party ticket. and the Supreme Court Sc
Verely criticised him for not calling in
another Judge. c. sending the case to an
other district. Phillips VS.. Curiey. 62
Pac. Rep.)
In an action against the Western Union
Telegraph Company for damages for trans
mitting two kilograms alleged by the
plaintiff to have been TfbeIous. Judge
Lochren. Of the United States Circuit
Court holds that the telegraph company
is under no duty Of censorship, and has no
right to cateehise the sender and if its
clerk acts In good faith, and the language
of the message is such that person OF
ordinary intelligence. knowing nothing OF
the parties or circumstances would not
necessarily conclude that defamation was
the object and purpose of the message, 1t
is the duty of the clerk to send the mes
sage. and the company thereby incurs no
liability (Nye vs. Western Union Tel.
Co., 104 Fed. Rep, 62s.)
In an Indictment charging the defend
ants with conspiring to delay and OBJ
struet the passage of a train carrying the
mails OF the United States, the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals held, liz
the case of Salla VS.. United States tfO4
Fed Rep, SAY, that it is essential to al
lege that the defendants knew that the
mails of the United States were carried
upon the train, even though the facts and
shown in the evidence were
sufficient to charge them with such knowi-
edge.
In prosecution for bigamy IN CaIisor-
lia the defendant admitted the second
but contended that bigany like
,ther crimes, is the result of joint op-
sration of act and intent, and that IL he
hought he was not married when he en-
cred the marriage relation the seeoni
ime, then he had no intent to commit
he crime, and could not, as matter OF
aw. be guilty. On appeal. the Supreme
,ourt said that while the defendants po-
'ition was plausible, it was not the law.
The intent. as referred to in the code. the
.ourt held, IS the intent to do the act
lamely contract the marriage, and is not
my intent to violate the law; and il the
defendant knew fully what he was doing
vhen he married the second time he was
uilty. whether or not he intended to COM
nit the crime of bigamy. People vs.
hartman, So Pac Rep, S23.}
In an action for damages for personal in
uries, against a railway company, the
,laintiff was injured while she was in the
tation of the company, where she had re-
NAMED after leaving the train. She testf-
led that before she reached the station
he had decided that, as it was night, she
would not go out in the darkness to find
he house of the friend she had come to
fsit, but would remain at the station until
aylight. On this testimony the railway
ompany contended that this mental reso-
Gttii0H to remain at the station terminated
he relation of carrier and passenger at
nee and that she cannot recover for any
injury resulting from the negligence of
he railway company. although it occurred
after she entered the station.
nd before she had a reasonable time to
cave it, The Circuit Court refused to
AXE this view of the law, and on appeal
he Circuit Court OF Appeals affirmed the
OF the lower lue SOfl
eId that in this case the plaintiff was
INJURED before SHE had had a reasonable
ime tc leave the station and that even n
he had formed resolution to remain in
he station for an unreasonable length OF
ime after leaving the car. the company
TouId not be excused from performing its
uty TO her during the time the relation OF
arrier and passenger continued, which is
IttH the passenger has had a reasonable
ime. under all the circumstances, to leave
he station (Chicago, Rock Island and Pa
iffc Railway Company VS.. Wood, 10i Fed.
.ep, 663-)
One who practices what is known as
without obtaining a eertil-
ate from the State Board OF Health is
ED by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, in
he case Of Little vs. State ga n. W. Rep,
ISL, to be a practitioner of medicine IN
er the CODE and to be liable to the PEN
lty prescribed specifically for practicfng
,elieine without license. This decision
; opposed to several heretofore rendered
i different States On the same question
The chairman of a political convention in
he State of Washington. through misap-
rehension. announced that certain can
itsase had been nominated as the result
second ballot of the convention. while
a matter of fact another candidate had
cen nominated on tho first ballot. TIE
invention aequieseed without protest or
,jection in the nomination as announced
= the chairman A writ of mandamus was
-anted to the candidate who had received
le requisite number of votes on the 6rst
lllot TO compel the chairman OF the CEN
ention to certify him as the nominee. On
,peal the Supreme Court held that the
- t1r- haa tad