The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-01

| cludes with the statement that then the
defendant is guilty of murder. and the
| jury should so find" is held by the Su-
! preme Court of Illinois in the case OF
I Steiner VS.. People t5S n. E. Rep, $3.50,
| to be erroneous, because under indict-
ment for murder, the accused may be
found guilty of manslaughter, and. there
| fore, the jury should be left free TO find
| him guilty of either murder or man
| slaughter, without being specifically di-
| rected that they should find him guilty
! of one offence only, and not the other.
! In Osgood VS.. Skinner ds6 ILL.,, 49D, it
| is held by the Supreme Court OF Illinois
! that the Appellate courts are not enpow
cred to direct the trial courts to enter a
particular judgment If error is discOv-
cred in the record and the cause is re-
manded. This decision will result in the
entry OF final judgments in the Appellate
! courts, from which an appeal will lie di-
rectly to the Supreme Court. This prac-
tice will he beneficial in avoiding dup1i-
cation OF unnecessary appeals. 1t is sur
prising that this point has not been raised
before, for the practice remained unchal-
lenged since the establishment of appel
late courts in this State, in 1887. THE
National Corp. Rep.)
Where one has been tried and convicted
In the Superior Court the Supreme Court
of Indiana, in the case of Winslow VS.
Green t5s y. E. Rep. 25D, holds that he
cannot be released by habeas corpus be-
cause he was not arraigned and did not
plead in such court. since, as such errors
do not go to the jurisdiction of the court,
its judgment is not subject to collateral
attack
y contract in which one manufac turer
agreed with a;tother engaged in the same
business, in consideration of a certain
sum. to cease manufacturing certain arti-
cles for one year, was held to be void, as
against public policy by the Supreme
Court of Michigan in the case of Clark VS.
Needham (s3 y. ". Rep. 1G2T. 1t was
contended in support OF the contract that
1t was not in general restraint of trade
but was limited as TO time and subject
matter. But the court held that any such
contract is invalid, whether the restraint
be for one year or any number of years.
or is unlimited as TO time: that the agree
ment to close one part OF 9 business is as
much against the policy of the law as q
contract to close the entire: that the one
is as reprehensible as the other and that
they differ only in degree.
\ wife brought suit against her husband
in Michigan on the ground of cruelty
made by her husband to have her commit
ted to an insane asylum. The husbands
defence was that he honestly believed her
insane because of her statements attrib-
uttng improper conduct to him. On APP
peal the Supreme Court held that the ac-
ton on the part Of the husband did not
constitute cruelty. The court said they
were convinced that the wife became in
tensely jealous of her husband without
iitSt Iicot ;cpt tn boy har.
adjudged insane was made in good faith
and in the belief that the statements at
tributing improper conduct to the husband
We're induced by an unsettled mind.
tReichert VS.. Reichert, SO n. W. Rep,
100S.)
A railroad employee while at work died
from sunstroke. He held an accident in
surance policy which provided that the
policy extended to death solely through
external. violent or accidental injury;
and that II death occurred by sunstroke
while not in the line of his duty. the liza
bility would only be one-fourth of the
policy. 1t was contended by the insur-
ancc company that death caused by sun
stroke while in the discharge of duty is
not covered by the policy; and that sun
stroke is not external, violent or acct
dental injury in the sense of the statute.
But the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
held that from the provision in the poll
cy that the liability of the company would
be reduced TO cne-fourth in the event of
death by sunstroke while not in the line
of duty, it followed that if the sunstroke
occurred while in the discharge of bis
duty there would be full liability on the
part of the insurance company. RAILWAY
Official and Employees Acc. Assn VS.,
Johnson. IS $. W. Rep, 694.)
Under the article of the constitution
providing that the Governor on extraOr-
binary occasion may convene the Legisla-
ture by proclamation stating the purpose
for which he has convened it. the SUI
preme Court of California in the case of
People VS. Curry (62 Pac. Rep. 5l6). holds
that where the Governors proclamation
calling an extra session of the Lesisia-
ture made no mention of the subject of
proposing constitutional amendments an
amendment proposed at such extra ses-
sion was invalid and not entitled to sub
mission TO vote.