The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-04-21
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
new and interesting question as to
whether the statute which presumes per-
son dead who has been absent from the
state seven successive years applies TO one
leaving the State as a fugitive from JUS
tice has been decided by the Kentucky
Court Of Appeals. The statute is as fol-
lows:
If any person who shall have resided
in this State 90 from and do not return to
this State for seven successive years, he
shall be presumed to be dead in any case
wherein his death shall come in question,
unless proof be made that he was alive
within that time"
1t has been soughtsto apply this statute
in an action on the life insurance policy
OF James w. Tate. forpaer Treasurer Of
Kentucky, who has been Absent from the
Commonwealth for sesen successive years.
The policy was payable % Tate's wife ano
children. and the action is brought by his
only surviving child. the wife being dead.
The plaintiff alleged that on March Is,
1888. her father had gone from Frankfort.
State. had not been heard from since De-
eember u. 1883. period Of seven years.
and that he was dead. The company al
legged that Tate. as Treasurer of Kentucky
embezzled a large amount OF money. was
indicted for the crime, lied from The State,
ana That ne was coneeaiing himself to
avoid arrest
he Court of Appeals Of Kentucky (Mu-
tual Benefit Company VS. Martin. IS 5. W.
KEEP, 694J held that the fact that a person
was a fugitive from justice during an alb
senee OF seven successive years does not
prevent the application of the statute but
that this fact should 90 TO the jury and be
considered by it in determining whether
the person was dead. The court said shat.
on investigation, il did not find that the
exact point had been adjudicated before
and that the question was free from dim
Guilty The court further held that the
beneficiary lost no right by continuing to
pay the premium during the absence OF the
assured.
The decision of a supreme court of a
State declaring unconstitutional a statute
authorizing the issuance of municipal
bonds is held by the United States Circuit
Court OF Appeals for the district Of South
Carolina in Pickens Tp. Post go Fed
Rep. 559), not to be conclusive on a court
OF the United States in a case involving
the rights OF bonafide purchaser Of such
bonds, whose rights accrued prior To such
decision. Where the Supreme Court OF the
United States has determined the sane act
TO be constitutional and valid its decision
governs in such case.
North Carolina furnishes a curious case
illustrating the modern tendency to hold
railroad companies responsible for any in
jury or misfortune which may occur TO one
/ In
the plaintiff. who was a passenger on de-
tendents train was suspected OF having
committed capital offence in South Caro-
lima, and was arrested by the sheriff. Eho
boarded the train and apprehended the de-
Z PENDANT after the train conductor had
. pointed the plaintiff out as the man he
wanted The plaintiff contends that he
I was entitled. as a passenger. to protection
I by tie defendants employees from arrest.
I But tSe court said that il was aware Of
no authority for his position" and that
/ IL did not think the defendants duty could
. be carried 20 such an extent That would
make the defendants train a sanctuary. -
: said the court, Ito which criminals could
: Zee for protection" Owens vs. Whining
/ ton, etc. Railway Company, IS S. E. Rep.
259)
Where a person agreed to sell stack OF
hay To another. who agreed to buy the
same, and the hay was to be weighed and
I charged for accordingly. but before being
weighed was accidentally destroyed. the
I Court Of Appeals Of Colorado. in Young vs.
I Minker (59 Pac- Rep. e22) held that the
I title passed 10 the buyer and, therefore, lie
must bear the loss
/ While TO pick ones pocket without the
use Of some force or violence OF putting in
[ fear is not robbery. yet. If the victim is
/ being pushed or showed about by the pick
/ pocket or his associates for the purpose
I Of diverting his attention and the crime is
/ then accomplished. the Court Of Appeals OF
Kentucky, il, Snyder VS.. Commonwealth
! (55 S. ". Rep, 6I9), holds that ii is rob-
+ berry. even II the victim is at the time
/ unaware Of his loss.
Mere declarations Of one in a dying con-
ditiOn TO the effect that he wanted his
property 70 go to designated person and
wished those present TO see to it IL
/ made solely for the purpose OF having a
written Will prepared, and not with the
intent or design that the words spoken
should OF themselves operate as a tesla
mentary disposition OF the decedent's
property. are held BY the Supreme Court
OF Georgia. in Knox VS.. Richards (25 s E
Rep, 295), not to constitute q nonculiative
will
Travelling statesmen engaged by a non
I resident firm to take orders for groceries
and medicines are held by the Texas
I Court Of Appeals. in Turner VS.. State (55
F s W, S34), to be engaged in interstate
commerce, and hence not subject to an oc-
eupation tax imposed on travelling sales
men Of patent articles or medicines.
Where the accused contends that a cir
cult judge is hostile TO him. and the facts
stated are not such as necessarily or prob
ably indicate such hostility. the Court Of
Appeals Of Kentucky. in Smith VS.. Com
mOnwealth (55 $. W. Rep. 71S). holds that
the judge did not err in refusing TO va
cate the bench.
A contract of marriage entered into On
/ Sunday night has been held valid BY a
Massachusetts judge, under the Sunday
law OF that State.
1 In that part Of the country where my
( youth was passed said the judge in his
Z opinion. I'VE used to think that such en-
gagements were among the things thai
Sunday. and especially Sunday evening.
was instituted for"
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, has
( yet to pass upon this question
Where the plaintiff alleges and is per-
mitted to prove. as evidence Of malice in
an action for libel. that the proceedings
against him in a Baptist convention were
conducted in a harsh and unfair manner
the Court of Civil Appeals in CranfiH vs.
Hayden t55 5. W. Rep, S05) holds the de-
PENDANTS should have been permitted IN
rebut the evidence, and show by expert