The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-11-03
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

A liquor license, transferable. owned
by bankrupt at the time his petition
in bankruptcy was filed, is held to be
available as assets of the estate, by the
United States Circuit Court CT Appeals
in re Fisher Cos Fed Rep. seq, and The
bankrupt may be compelled by the court
10 execute the transfer necessary 10 en-
able the trustee to convert it into money
for the benefit of the estate. The court
held that the license, considered as rep
TesentiGg police regulation-even
though given for a fixed period, and re-
Vocable without compensation by legis-
IatIon because it represents no vested
right-cannot be regarded as prJpsr,y it
self. Yet the license represents capital
in such form that it can be converted
into money, snd constitutes property in
this sense, which the bankrupt is bound
to assist in realizing for his creditors.
The rights of tenants of Jlats were de-
fined in the recent case of Sanders
Clark vs.. Grosyenor Mansions Company
and d'Alessandri f48 w. R., 500, wherein
it was held that a tenant Of a fiat WIS
as much entitled to the comfortable en-
joyment OF his fat as a man is entitled
TO the comfortable enjoyment of his
dwelling house. The plaintiff in Il he case
rented a fat in a building owned by the
fiat there were only private residenC es
in the building Subsequently, d Ales-
sandri took a part of the building and
used it for restaurant, with the various
accompaniment of heat, smell, and
noise. and in respect of each the plaintin
found her COMFORTABLE enjoyment CT her
fiat lnterfered with, and sued for an IN
junction accordingly. In deciding the case
the court held that the legal corse-
quences of neighbcr's use Of his prem
Uses depended on whether the user was
reasonable or not aid that in this case
the noise from the restaurant was
slight matter, Of which the plaintiff
should not complain; but that the smell
and the heat constituted an unreasonable
use OF the adjoining premises
A contract between two owners Of an
ice plant in a city in which there are 10
other ice factories wherein it is agreed
that in consideration Of the payment CT
an annual sum by one OF the parties to
the other party TO the contract the latter
will not run his ice plant nor suffer it to
be run for FIVE years, unless he should
sell it, in which event he released the hrst
party from all subsequent payments, IS
held by the Supreme Court of Alabama, in
the case Of Tuscaloosa Ice Company VS..
William Us So Rep. eG0) TO be void, as
contrary to public policy, because it sti-
ICQ COIpEtfIlIA anu p4 O1E1ObC-- i-1cA4SkS0
In their opinion the court said IN part:
1T tends to iniure the public by sitting
competition and creating a monopoly. It's
manifest purpose, even upon It's face, and
certainly when taken in connection with
the facts averred in the plea, was TO Sc
cure TO the coyenantee a monopoly IN the
production and sale of ice in the town
and vicinity and such is lis operation and
effect 1t thus operated not only
TO put it in the power Of the coyeuaatee
to arbitrarily fix prices. but directly and
necessarily to create a partial ice famine,
upon which the defendant company could
fatten and fatten at its own viii. Eut
aside from this the monopoly itseif-the
putting in the power OF the coYenantee
for the utter condemnatIon-ls quite SUM
cient fer the utter condemnation Of the
contract as being against public Folicy
To say the least, it Is against
public policy TO monopoliZe in this way
any commodity of common utility or OF
common consumption, or use among the
people, or even of considerable utility CT
consumption, whether il be one OF the
neeessaTies of life or not; and, N the
second place, we feel entirely assured OF
conservatism in declaring that in this
latitude, and especially in towns as popu-
Ious as Tuscaloosa (Alabama), ice IS one
of the common necessities OF life.
Where a Juror testified that he had form
ed an opinion concerning the guilt or limo
cence OF the defendant from what he had
read in the newspapers, but that he would
be wholly governed by the evidence given
in tie case and instructions Of the court
and would disregard any opinion he might
have formed from newspaper accounts, the
Supreme Court of Nevada, in the case OF
State vs.. Scinas go Pae- Rep, 242), held
that il was not error not to remove such
juror.
The members of lodge of the hide
pendent order OF Odd Fellows are rot liable
to another member of the same lodge for
sick benefits, holds the Supreme Court of
Ohio IN the case Of Myers vs.. jenkins t57
y. e. Rep, 1889, unless there is some
law OF the order expressly making them
liable; and it was further held that when a
member of such order claims to be entitled
to sick benefits he must seek his remedy,
in the first instance. in the lodge and tri-
bunals Of the order, and the determination
of the matter OF such lC5ge and tribunals.
in substantial accordance with the laws Of
the order. Will be final and conclusive OF
the rights &c receive such benefits: and If
the lodge refuses or negiects. upon proper
demand TO have such benefits determined
in substantial accordance with the laws Of
the order, o refuses to Fay such benefits
after the same have been awarded to such
member, then such member may sue in the
civil courts for the recovery of such bene-
fits.
Where. according to the book of iiscip-
line of the Methodist Episcopal Church. as
construed by its bishops and its ecclesias-
teal authorities. the bishop who presIdes
at the annual conference has the rover
to consolidate two or more churches into
one church and the trustees of the church
es whose existences were terminated. and
such construction is the common under
standing and practice of the church and
has never been called in question, the Su-
preme Court of Errors of Connecticut in
the case of Trustees of Trinity NJ E.
Church VS. Harris, holds that it is binding
on the courts.
N prosecutions for violation Of the Il
quor law in Kansas. jurors cannot have
the pleasure of smelling a bottle alleged
to have contained whisky. In the ease OF
State VS.. Coggins t62 Pac. Rep. 24D the
lower court was held by the Court of APP
peaIs to have erred in permitting the ju-
rors to examine and smell of the contents
of two bottles which witnesses testified
had contained whisky; but the error in
hnI To he HI