The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-17
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
tCompiIed Expressly for Tho Times,


check or draft drawn upon some bank in
which the employer has money on deposit
to cash the same. The object of the statute
was to prevent the payment OF wages by
the employer In scrip or token or other
similar manner. and the act prescribed a
penalty for its violation. This act has been
held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
of Kansas, in the case of State VS.. Ham.
$50 Pac. Rep, 340) upon the ground that
it violates the fourteenth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, pro-
viding that no State shall deprive any
person Of life. liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws"
The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the
case of Prieto VS.. st. Alphonsus Convent of
Mercy t27 So. Rep. 1881, holds that girl
of seventeen years has not the legal right
to leave her mothers home and enter a
convent with the expressed uIpose of be-
coming nun, without previously obtain
ing the mothers consent: and should she
enter a convent under such circumstances
and be received therein upon the suppose
ton that she had obtained such consent, it
is the province of the writ Of habels corpus
to release her from such restraint and re-
store her to the rightful custody of her
mother.
Where person who is seriously ill
agrees orally with another to convey GER
tain piece of land in payment for care in
Illness and dies without making the con-
veyance, the Supreme Court of South Da-
kota, in the case of Lothrop vs.. Marble 81
N. w. Rep, $3.50, holds that this oral
agreement should be carried into effect,
and that the land should be conveyed.
A curious case has arisen in Nebraska
as to who is entitled TO a reward for find
ing dead body. The Supreme Court held
tElkhorn Lodge VS.. Hudson, 81 n. W. Rep,
$500 that where many persons are engaged
in the search for a dead body, for the re-
cOvery of which reward is offered, and
one acting on his own account, independ-
ent Of the others, and for the purpose of
securing the reward, succeeds in finding
the missing body, he will be entitled to
the whole reward, and that the others Of
the searching party have no right to pro
rata shares.
All hackmen without discrimination
carrying passengers and baggage for hire
of Minnesota, in the case of Godbout VS..
st. Paul Union Depot Company Isl N. W.
Rep, $3.50. to enter the depots of railway |
company TO deliver or receive passengers |
or baggage, subject to proper regulations |
for the interest of the travelling public.
In an action to recover the amount of |
an accident insurance policy, which in |
sured against injuries sustained through |
external, violent and accidental means, !
except that in case of injury wantoniy iu- |
1icted by the assured or inflicted while in
sane, the measure OF liability is to be the
premiums paid the Supreme Court OF |
Illinois in the case of Fidelity and Casu
atty Company VS.. Weise (55 n. E. Rep, 54O), |
holds that on the issue OF suicide the bur-
den of proof is on the plaintiff to show by |
a preponderance of the evidence that the
assured did not commit suicide.
Alexander w. Scott, thirty-two years of
age, and Sadie Lowell, a girl of thirteen
years of age were married in Minnesota
without the consent of the girls parents
by an ordained minister upon the presen-
tation of a legal license. The day after
the marriage the father of the girl went
TO the residence of the husband and for
cibiy took his daughter away. against her
Will. and detained her. The husband
thereupon sued out writ of habeas cor |
pus. and upon hearing the court decided
that the father had the right to the
custody and control of his minor daughter.
But the Supreme Court ti6 s. r. A, 400
held that the father has no legal right 10
her from living with her husband
4 she so elects and ordered that she be
reed from the restraint of her father.
IN this opinion the court said that the
marriage of a person who has not reached
he age of competency as established by
statute, but is competent by the common
aw. is not void. but voidable only at the
election of the party under the age of
egal consent.
Where a passenger on railway train re-
eived mental shock in a collision at a
abroad crossing which resulted in the dis
ase of neurasthenia the Court Of Civil APP
eals OF Texas, in the case of Gulf and C.
railway Company VS.. Hoyter (55 s. W.
lep., 1881 holds that he is entitled to re-
Give damages, although he received no
oddly injury at the time.
railroad laid out a town along its line
I Texas and advertised and sold lots in ac-
ordance with plat showing a railroad
on which to build a station and
alegraph office. The lots were purchased
nd Improvements made thereon. Suisse
uently the railroad was bought by another
ompany. which moved the passenger and
telegraph stations from the town. A pur-
haser of one of the lots thereupon sued
ne latter company for damages for the re-
lovals. But the Court of Civil Appeals of |
eXas (55 s w. Rep, 1907 decided that in
he absence of a contract with The original
1mpany to assure its contracts the latter
1mpany was not liable for damages sus-
lined by the plaintiff by reason of such
amoyal
The custom has long existed for hotel ,
at Hot Springs, Ark, to send out /
RUNNERS 10 solicit passengers on incoming :
airs for their hotels. The railway com
lnies have prohibited persons from COM :
x upon their premises for this purpose |
nd the courts have held that they had this :
ght Sandrigan VS.. State 81 Ark. 50).
the recent case of Osborn VS. St. Louis. :
c., Railway Company (55 S W. Rep, 1922 :
lie railway company was sued for damages =
T eiecting forcibly, and thereby iniuring
lie plaintiff, who, it was commended, was :
The jury found in favor OF the n
aintif, giving him $1,000 damages, and h
appeal the Supreme Court of Arkansas =
iirmed the judgment on the ground that
e question as to whether the plaintiff
as soliciting" at the time of his election
as submitted TO the jury. and the finding
as that he was not and that this verdict
binding.
A novel question has been raised in Grim
al law in the case of Regina VS.. Law "a
]. 262). as to whether the defendant, who
IS been acquitted in a criminal prosecu-