The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-24
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

q
State court and Federal court in mat
| ter Of bankruptcy was recently decided BY
the United States Circuit Court Of APP
peals in the case of Wagner VS.. United
States Q0i Fed. Rep, 1887. and it was
held that in such matters the jurisdiction
of the Federal court is exclusive and su-
prcme.
After his adjudication of bankruptcy
bankrupt filed an application for a re-
straining order against the opposing
party to restrain further proceedings ior
the collection of alimony under the de-
cree awarding alimony to his wife. and
the United States District Court. acting
upon the belief and understanding that
this claim, was one for which a discharge.
when granted, would be release. grant
ed the restraining order, which was duiy
served. After the service thereof, and
with knowledge thereof, the State court
made an order committing the bankrupt
to jail for non-payment of the aiimony
| heretofore decreed. II was contended
| that this was a punishment in the State
| court for acts heretofore committed In
| violation of orders of the court. and for
which tine State court had the power and
/! Jurisdiction to punish the bankrupt. not
| withstanding the proceedings in bank
| ruptcy and the restraining order which
| had been granted in the case. But on ap-
| peal the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals held otherwise. TT 1.-THE order).
said the court, docs not purport to be
punishment for criminal contempt, but
a committal of the bankrupt for the nom
payment Of the a1imony in question 1t
is punishment for civil contempt, the
object of the order being to coerce pay
ment of the sums Of alimony heretofore
ordered to be paid. 1t seems to
us quite clear that the State court under
took to punish the bankrupt for non-per-
| formance Of the very things which the
bankrupt court, exercising the power
granted by law, had restrained the party
! in interest from compelling the bankrupt
| to do The question. therefore, presented
| Is whether the bankrupt, having been
| committed in violation Of the restraining
order heretofore made by the bankruptcy
| court. exercising its plenary power. can
| be released from imprisonment under
proceedings in habeas corpus And the
court held that the bankruptcy court was
acting within Its Jurisdiction in Issuing
the restraining order, and. as it's jurisdic-
ton in bankruptcy matters is exclusive
and supreme, the bankrupt was entitled
to be discharged.
The Young Mems Christian Association
of Omaha, being organized and incor-
ligious work. owned certain real estate.
upon which was erected building used by
it for the purpose of carrying forward the
object of its organization, except the hrst
floor thereof, which was rented for busi-
ness purposes, the rents being applied 10
the work of the association. Held by the
Supreme Court of Nebraska in the case cf
Young Mems Christian Association w.
Douglas County (S3 N. W. Rep, 92i) that
the portion Of the property occupied for
business purposes was not used exclusive
ly for educa tional, charitable, and reli-
gious work, and therefore not exempt from
taxation under the general revenue laws
of the State. The court said that the
controversy was narrowed to the question
of whether the renting Of the first floor OF
the building for business purposes. when
the income or rental is devoted to the OBJ
ject of the association. is an exclusive use
of the property for religious and charita-
Bile purposes. within the meaning of the
law, and held that it was not. THE law
looks to the property as it finds 1t in use,"
said the court, land not to what ID done
with its accumulations."
judicial tribunals cannot pass upon the
correctness of parliamentary rulings or
tactics adopted in a political convention.
holds the Supreme Court Of North Dakota
IL
Rep. 914). The court held that such ques-
tions are purely political and that courts
can determine In this behalf only whether
or not an assembly Is political conven-
ton and organized as the law requires.
The court said IN part: From the writ
and answer 1t is clear that when the Re-
publican County Convention Of Pierce
County convened in said county on Sep
TENDER 49, 1900 1t was composed of two
10 ct ar1 al
mate result was a division, each faction
claiming to be the Republican County
Convention, and each nominating full
list Of county officers. The certificate of
nomination as made by one faction was
presented to the auditor, but he refused
to receive the same upon the ground that
the certificate of nominations made by the
Republican County Convention was al
ready on file. 1t is clear that the one duty
of the court in this case is to determine
which faction, il either, constituted the
de facto Republican Convention. 1t is not
our province to correct parliamentary err
rors or to scrutinize the parliamentary
methods by which an organization of a
convention was secured, IL only an organi-
cation of the Republican County Conven-
ton was effected"
girl employed in candy mandatory
from 4 water gauge which had bursted,
and ran to an open window, jumped out,
and was injured. She brought suit against
her employer, on the ground that her in
jury was the result of his negligence in
not preventing the bursting of the water
gauge and not warning her of the danger.
But the court held that the evidence
showed that the girl was in no danger,
except from unanticipated possible conse-
quences of fright, and that nothing could
have been done to prevent the breaking
Of The gauge, and that there was no reason
to suppose that the girl needed warning
of danger. tGirard vs.. Griswold, So n. E.
Rep. 179. Mass.)
Photographs of the scene of the derail-
ment of a railway train, taken just after
the accident, are held by the Supreme
Court of Iowa, in the case. of Bach VS..
Iowa Central Railway Company SO n. W.
Rep. a59). to be admissible in evidence in
an action 20 recover for injuries sustained
in the wreck.
An experienced spinner who, on the
electric lights going out for few mo-
ments. reaches out in the dark with his
left hand to stop the machinery, and in so
doing gets his hand crushed in the gear,
is held by the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, IN the case of Kelley VS..
Calumet Wooden Company (5S N. E. Rep,
1922 to be guilty of contributory negli-
gence and not entitled to recover damages.
so far as appears said the court. he
had no reason to anticipate that the dark
ness would continue for any considerable
time, and there is no evidence that there