The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-02
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


in the mails for transmission certain sealsd
letters having the words National Col ect-
ing Company" has been upheld by the Uli-
ted States Circuit Court, southern district
of Ohio. in the case OF Davis VS.. Brown.
The question arose under the act OF Con-
gress OF September 20. 1883 t25 Stat. L. 1867
providing that all matter. otherwise mli!-
cover or wrapper of which any
deineations - calculated by the
terms or manner or style OF display, AID
obviously intended to reflect injuriously
upon the character or conduct of another
may be printed are
hereby declared non-maiiable matter, and
shall not be conveyed in the mails nor de-
livered from any postofiice. nor by any le.-
ter carrier and shall be withdrawn from
the mails under such regulations as tie
Postmaster General shall prescribe
This law" said the court, vests tie
postmaster General with power to exc ude
nCT-mailable matter from the mails. and by
reasonable implication with authority o
determine what matter Is non-mailable,
and the courts cannot review his action,
unless he acts maliciousiy or frauGently or
exceeds his authority. 1t was the duty OF
the defendant to obey the order of the De-
partment. and in doing so he did not act
arbitrarily or wrongfully."
The act Of the Legislature Of Ohio en-
titled An &C. for the suppression Of mob
! violence" which authorizes the recovery
Of a penalty against the county for the
death of person caused by Iynching has
been declared constitutional by the Su-
preme Court Of that State in the case OF
Board of Commissioners w. Church t57
y. W. Rep. so. II was contended that the
provisions of this statute contravene arti-
Gle of the Fourteenth Amendment OF the
Constitution of the United States. and are
also repugnant to the Constitution OF Ohio
for the reasons that they violate the
right of trial by jury; that they authorize
the taking of private property without due
process OF law: that they are a violation
OF private rights OF property, and that
they are an exercise OF judicial functions
by the Legislature. In the opinion the
court said in part: In the order OF at
tack, it seems to have been overlooked
that the Constitution EXTENDS its protec-
tion over individuals as well as county and
municipal corporations. Even criminal
has sosne rights which cannot be forfeited.
Every person who is accused Of crime is
guaranteed fair trial. and he cannot be
deprived Of life or liberty without due
process OF law II a large num-
Der OF people of any country become i'm
bued with the lynching spirit. or negligent
and indifferent to the due and orderly en-
forcement OF the law. so that lawless men
may act with impunity, then there is no
course for the State to take other than to
intervene and directly protect the individ-
ual as well as enforce upon the commUni-
ty the observance OF good order. Now. as
to the alleged violation of the right Of trial
by jury. IL may be doubted whether counties
and municipalities have any such absolute
right Of trial by jury that they may CON-
plain of its infringement by the Legisla-
ture. They are creatures of constitutional
and legislative enactment. They have
only such powers and privileges as are
given them, and these powers and privi-
leges may, in general, be modified or
taken away. . county or munich
pality can no more complain Of the statute
as an infringement upon the right of trial
by jury than the man who has been tried
by jury and found guilty of a crime can
complain that the law under which he is
tried does not provide that the jury shall
assess the amount of his fine or adjudge
the extent OF his Imprisonment.
Again. this legislation is not an exercise
of judicial power, because it does not ad-
Judicate any transaction, case, or contro-
versy which arose before Its enactment,
and Of which the judicial tribunals might
have been cogniZant. 1t provides what
shall be Inc law. binding upon the judi
cial department, after its enactment, and
is not. in any sense, trespass upon the
province of the courts"
This decision becomes especially i'm
portant in view Of the fact that many Of
the Southern States are discussing the
question of similar legislation.
BY statute in New Hampshire it is I'M
lawful for any person to furnish. or cause
to be furnished. in any hotel, etc, to any
guest or patron. oleomargarine, butterine.
or any similar substance, without first no.
tifying such guest or patron that the SUBJ
stance so furnished is not butter. In con-
STRUNG this statute the Supreme Court of
New Hampshire in State VS.. Ryan GAG All.
Rep. 49), holds that it is no defence that
the person so furnishing does not know
that 1t is oleomargarine. and acts honest
ly and In good faith under a mistake Of
fact He is bound to know the fact as
well as the law said the court. land he
acts at his peril
The question as to whether railroad
company has the right to take up q mile
age ticket limited to particular person
when presented by another person than the
one to whom the ticket was issued was de-
Court of New Hampshire in Eastman VS..
Maine Central Railroad TIC Att. Rep. 5ii.
The plaintiff was accustomed to rent rail-
road mileage books at an advance on theic
purchase price. The conductor took one
of these books from passenger who had
purchased it from the plaintiff, whereupou
the plaintiff sued to recover the amouns
originally paid for the mileage book. But
the court denied his right to recover. hold.-
ing that the conditions on which the nile.
age book was issued were not contrary TO
law or public policy. ard that having vio-
lated these conditions the law affords tbs
plaintiff no relief.
In North Carolina the register of deeds
Of Catawba county was sued by the fathe>
Df girl fifteen years old for damages CT;
his official bond for unlawfully Issuing to
he girl a marriage license. The daughtec
married one Lawton, and the plaintiff
.hereupon sued the register of deeds, who
issued the license for damages In deprlv-
ng him of the services and companionship
If his child. But the Supreme Court held
hat under the Code of North Carolina.
female may lawfully marry at the age
If fourteen years. and that her husband is
entitled to the company. comfort. and ser
fices of his wife. and that any interfer-
ance Herewith subjects the offender TO
in damages. The law Of mar
rage" said the court. ION the grounds OF
public policy and the peculiar relationship
established by marriage. overrides the
right of the parent to the services OF the
,hiid. and the duties of care and projections
are imposed on the husband. and at tie
same moment those duties. as to the pa ent
cease" Wilkinson Dellinger, 80 5. Z.
Rep. $50