The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-24
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
Compiled Expressly for The Tmes.)

to keep the door closed to prevent others
| from entering. The question arose in a
case of assault where the defendant, the
Z husband of a passenger who was tempo
rarily withheld from entering a car. as
saulted the offending party with a stick
| 1t seems that the door of the car was kept
closed against defendants wife until 1t
was discovered that she was a woman.
Then she was allowed to enter. But the
magistrate remarked that she had no right
to inconvenience the other passengers, and
: that in permitting her inside there was
more gallantry shown than thei, should
/ have been.
This decision recalls the case OF Brainard
vs.. Nassau Electric Company t61 n. Y.
Supp, "a, decided November rs, 1899. in
which the New York Supreme Court, ap-
pelIste division, judicially recognized the
: custom of giving seats TO women. In this
case Brainard was killed while standing on
the running board OF a crowded car. after
he had given up his seat to female pas
senger and the railway company contend
ed that by so doing he had been guilty OF
contributory negligence and was not en-
titled 10 recover. But the court held
otherwise, saying: Custom, even at CoDey
Island, has not deadened all sense of cour
tesy; and, If it had, we should continue TO
think that the law OF negligence has still
a sufficient respect for the amenities OF life
as not per Sc TO charge as negligent the
surrender OF seat by a man to woman.
In New York 1t is provided that il posi-
lions held by honorably discharged soldiers
shall be abolished, the incumbents shall be
transferred to any branch Of the service for
duty in such position as they may be fitted
TO fill. John X. Shields, an honorably dis
charged soldier, was employed as assistant
secretary of the fire department, and on
abolition of that Office his services we're
dispensed with. though at the time there
were other positions vacant in the depart
meDt the duties of which he was compe-
tent to perform. Shields filed pet tion
for mandamus against the fire commission
er, which petition was granted, and an ap-
peal taken therefrom by the commissioner
to the Supreme Court. appellate division.
But that court tShields VS.. Scannell. 81
n. Y. Supp, 682) affirmed the order ant
ing the writ. and held that the commits
sioner should assign him to duty in such
department like or similar to that per-
formed by him at the time of his removal. |
Under a statute in South Carolina pro-
vding that sheriff having tax warrant
for collection shall seize and sell so much
of the property of the DELINQUENT tax
payer as may be necessary, a sheriff hav-
ing a tax warrant for about $50 against a
landowner levied on and sold for sS5 a
tract of land belonging TO him worth $500. |
But the United States Circuit Court t99
Fed. Rep, 15i) held that this levy was ex-
cessive. the land was capable OF division,
and that the sale was voidable by the land
owner. |
The provision OF the Missouri statutes |
which prohibits the sale of oleomargaI inc, |
colored yellow, any shade CT yellow, SO |
as to resemble butter has been held by |
the United States Circuit Court, in the case |
of McIwaine VS.. Ellington (99 Fed. Rep.
13), valid. and its enforcement as to oleo
margarine brought from other States and
sold in the original packages not to be
violation of any rights secured by the in
terstate commerce clause of the Federal |
Constitution.
State statute providing that a jury
may consist OF less number than twelve
is constitutional, under the recent decis-
ion of the Supreme Court of the United
States in ex parte Maxwell. The question
arose on habeas corpus proceedings begun
by Maxwell in the State Of Utah after
his conviction and Incarceration in the
penitentiary, on the ground that the jury
which convicted him did not consist of
twelve men, and, therefore, he had not
been convicted by due process Of law, as
States. The jury was empaneled under
statue of Utah providing that a jury
shall consist OF eight jurors, except in
capital cases. 1t was conteDded by Max
we'll that the provision of the Constitution
of the United States declaring that no
person shall be convicted of crime except
by due process of law means a trial by a
jury of twelve men, in accordance with
the common law. The Supreme Court,
however held the statute was valid. |
Where a woman secures a divorce from
her husband and later RECEIVERS tudg-
ment against him for accrued alimony, he
having married again in the mean time,
il is held by Judge Hook of the United
States District Court of Kansas that the
wages of the husband are exempt from
by the first wife.
N the election Of directors of a corpora
ton the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the
case of Schwartz VS.. State t56 y. E. Rep,
20D held that the cumulative voting of
shares of stock is authorized by statute,
snd that one receiving majority Of the
votes so cast is elected director. though
ne does not receive the votes of the holders
Of a majority of the shares.
The statute taxing inheritances, as
amended by the act of 1898. has been held |
by the Supreme Court of Iowa. in the case
j Ferry VS.. Campbell TO be constitutional. |
The lower court held that the act was IN :
but the Supreme Court re-
versed this Judgment, holding that the
amendatory act removed all objections to ,
he constitutiOnality of the statute.
Where a corporation has money on de-
1osit in failing bank, and is informed of ,
he banks condition by one of the direc- !
Nybp &c al NJ @ /
ion, the New York Court of Appeals =,
o Brien VS.. East River Bridge Coz held =,
hat the corporation may withdraw its de-
,osit on the day of failure, and that section .
IS of the stock corporation law, prohibit
ng officers and directors of an insolvent U
corporation from using their knowledge of
is condition to secure their own claims,
Ices not apply TO the present case, al q
hough the director of the bank who gave o
he information was also president Of the
generation The court said the statute |
vas in derCgation of the common law, and v
hould not be construed so to include I
asses not fairly within its terms. |
What the statute fOrbids" the court de- I
Jared. lis that the director shall not. a
Inder such circumstances, draw out his I
,wn money and that when the director a
Il the bank and president of the corpora /
ion advised the board of directors of the i
after to make no more deposits. as the &
,apk was about to fail, he did not violate I
my law but, on the contrary, was per Il
orming duty which he owed TO the de- g
endant to save ii from loss. \
The Supreme judicial court of Massa- c
husetts, Weston VS.. Barnicoat, sustained +
verdict for SO 900 which the plaintiff re- O
overed on account of his name having O
,een "blacklisted' as who refused or | il
reelected TO pay his debts. The list in I