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

from entering. The question arose in
case Of assault, where the defendant, the
husband Of a passenger who was tempo
rarily withheld from entering a car, as
saulted the offending party with a stick
It 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 righ,
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 Braiuard
VS. Nassau Electric Company t6l y. Y.
Supp, "a, decided November IS, 1893. in
which the New York Supreme Court. ap-
peIlate 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 or
cCntributOry negligence and was not en-
titled to recover. But the court held
otherwise saying: Custom, even at Coney
Island has not deadened all sense of cour-
tesy; and If it had, we should continue 10
think that the law OF negligence has still
a sufficient respect for the amenities OF life
as not per Sc 60 charge as negligent the
surrender OF a seat by a man to woman.
In New York it is provided that if posi-
lions held by honorably dis ,harged 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 K. Shields, an bonorably dis
charged soldier was employed as assistant
secretary Of the fire department, and on
abolition OF that Office his services were
dispensed with, though at the time there
we're other positions vacant in the depart
meDt, the duties of which he was compe-
tent to perform. Shields filed a pet ton
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 Shields VS.. Scannell 81
n. Y Supp. 6S2) 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 statute in South Carolina pro-
yiding that a sheriff having a tax warrant
for collection shall seize and sell so much |
of the property of the delinquent tax
payer as may be necessary, a sheriff bav-
ing tax warrant for about $50 against
landowner levied on and sold for $S5 a
tract Of land belonging to him worth $500. |
But the United States Circuit Court (99
Fed Rep, 154) held that this levy was ex-
cessive. as the land was capable of division, |
and that the sale was voidsble by the land
owner.
The provision of the Missouri statutes |
which prohibits the sale Of oleOmargaIine, |
coored yellow, or any shade CT yellow. SO |
H. hoo haTI fr-t
the United States Circuit Court. in the case
Of McIwaiue VS. Ellington SO Fed. Rep.
49,, valid, and its enforcement as to cleo
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.
A 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
provided by the Constitution of the United
States. The jury was empaneled under
statue of Utah providing that a jury
shall consist OF eight jurors, except in
capital cases. 1t was contended by Max
well 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,
hold cfafutp was valid. |
Where a woman secures a divorce from
her husband and later RECEIVERS a judg
ment against him for accrued alimOny, he
having married again in .he 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.
In the election Of directors of a corpora
ton the Supreme Court Of Ohio, in the
case of Schwartz VS.. State (56 " E. Rep,
POD held that the cumulative voting Of
shares of stock is authorized by statute,
and that one receiving a majority Of the
votes so cast is elected a director though
ne does not receive the votes Of the holders
Of 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
If Ferry VS.. Campbell, to be constitutional. {
The lower court held that the act was IN s
but the Supreme Court re-
yersed this judgment holding that the
smendatory act removed all objections to
he consututionality Of the statute.
Where a corporation has money on de-
,osit in a failing bank, and is informed Of ,
he banks condition by one Of the direc-
0rs who is also president of the corpora !
ion, the New York Court Of Appeals ,
O'Brien vs.. East River Bridge Coz held 7
hat the corporation may withdraw its de
,osit on the day Of failure, and that section
s Of the stock corporation law, prohibit
ne officers and directors of an insOlvent
from using their knowledge Of u
Is condition 10 secure their own claims,
Ices not apply to the present case, al o
bougb the director OF the bank who gave o
he information was also president Of the
corporation The court said the statute l
vas in derogaton of the common law, and
hould not be construed so as to include {
asses not fairly within its terms I
What the statute forbids' the court de Z
Jared. lis that the director shall not, a
lnder such circumstances, draw out his 4
,wn money" and that when the director a
4 the bank and president Of the corpora !
ion advised the board Of directors OF the i
after to make no more deposits. as the 9
,ank was about to fail he did not violate l
ny law. but on the contrary. was per i
orming duty which he owed to the de- g
endant to save it from loss. 4
The Supreme judicial court Of Mlssa- C
husetts Weston VS.. Barnicoat, sustained I
verdict for SO 600 which the plaintiff re- o
overed on account Of his name having o
zen "blacklisted'' as one who refused or il
reelected to pay his debts. The list in I