Evening star., 1900-04-10
THE ORDER HAD TO PAY
DECISION REGARDING THE KNIGHTS
OF PYTHIAS.
Dispute Over the Insurance of a De.
ceased Member Supreme
Court Decisions.


peals for the fifth circuit in the case of the
| Knights of Pythias against Josephine R.
| Withers was affirmed by the Supreme
| Court, opinion by Justice Brown, yesterday
| afternoon. The action was originally begun
| In the circuit court of Hale county, Ala
| bama, by Mrs. Withers to recover of the
| Knights of Pythas the amount Of a policy
| Of insurance uE IN the life of her husband
| The payment of the policy was resisted on
| the ground that the secretary of the section
| in which Withars resided had failed to
make his return of premiums paid within
| the time required by the regulations of the
| board Of control located in Chicago. These
| regulations required that the full amount
| of dues Of each section should BE- paid by
| the end of the month in which they were
| due. failure to comply with which should
| work the forfeiture of the policy. Withers
| promptly paid his dues up to October 10.
| 1895. but the secretary of the order for his
| section had failed to make his remittance
| until the 4th of November following. The
| board of control thereupon suspended the
! entire section, afterward restoring all the
| members who were still living at the date
| Of the receipt of the remittance. Withers
| had died on the 1st of November and the
| order refused to pay his policy. The Pythi-
| ans took the position that the secretary was
| the agent of the insured only, and not the
! agent of the order. and that. therefore, the
| body was not responsible for his neglect
| The Supreme Court however, refused to
| accept this view, Justice Browns opinion
| holding the secretary to be the agent of
the Supreme Lodge of the knights of
| Pythias. and the order responsible for the
| full sum of the policy, regardless of the
negligence of the secretary of Withers' sec
| ton.
| The State Law Upheld.
| Justice White handed down the opinion
| OF the court in the Of the Ohio Oil
Company agt. the state of Indiana. The
case involved the validity of the state law
prohibiting persons from boring wells to
| permit the escape of gas into the atEaos-
| phere as opposed to the general interests os
| the community. The oil company in its pc
| tition alleged that the enforcement OF this
| law was a violation Of the federal ConStltu-
| ton in that it amounted to taking prop
erty without due process Of law, declaring
that it practically meant that the oil IN
| certain district could not be removed until
| the gas was exhausted The state courts
upheld the law, refusing to accept this
view of the case. The opinion delivered
! yesterday sustained that view Justice
| White said that the oil company had ap-
| parently proceeded under a misconception
| of the law, for under the view presented
| each property owner could proceed to do as
| he might please with his property to the
| injury of an entire community. For this
| reason the prohibtory law of the state was
| held to be valid and not in contraventiOn
| of the Constitution of the United States.
Receivers Not Liable.
!
preme Court decided that receivers of rail-
| roads not liable under the United States
statute of 1873 prohibiting railroad COM
panies from conhnng live stock for a
| longer period than twenty-eight hours at a
/ time without unloading them for rest, wa
| ter, etc The decision based on the
ground that the statute is applicable to
| companies" only, and the court held if
| there was an omission in the law it could
only be supplied by Congress. The case
| was that of the United States against the
| receivers of the Reading Railroad Company.
State Laws Validity Affirmed.
There was also a decision in the case of
the Camden and Suburban Railroad Com
pany against d. S. Stetson, affirming the
validity of the New Jersey law directing
that in any action for damages the court
| may, on application order a physical eX-
| animation of the person injured by physi-
| clan designated by the defendant. In a
! case for damages Stetson refused to submit
| to such examination. In passing upon
| the case Justice Peckham, who handed
| down the opinion of the court, said: There
| is no claim made that the statute violates
! the federal Constitution, and are of
| opinion that such Il claim would have no
| foundation. If made"
Not Twice Put in jeopardy.
| Chief Justice Fuller delivered an opinion
| in the case of Clarence Murphy against the
| commonwealth of Massachusetts. Murphy
| was sentenced to from ten to fifteen years
| imprisonment on the charge of embezze
| ment After serving two years, he COM
planned that the penalty was illegally i'm
posed because the crime was committed be-
| fore the law was enacted. This proving to
| be the case, he was given a sentence of
| twelve and a half years. He then demand
! ed to be discharged on the ground that he
| had twice been put in jeopardy for one Of
| fense. The state courts held against him
| on this plea and that decision was upheld
| by yesterdays opinion on the ground that
| the fact that there double jeopardy
| was due to Murphy's own act.
Sunday Closing Law Valid.
| In the case of Petit against the state of
| Minnesota, from the supreme court of the
| state of Minnesota, the court held the Min
! nesota Sunday closing law for barber shops
| to be valid.
| The court decided the controversy be-
| tween the Saranac Land and Timber Com
| pany and the state of New York over the
| title to 1900 acres Of land in Franklin
| county, New York, in favor of the state.
| Sycamore Island Fishing Club.