The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-07-07
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

| A curious case in criminal law in regart
TO what constitutes an accomplice was re.
Gently decided by the Texas Court OF Grim
| inal Appeals in Campbell VS.. State Isl s
| W. Rep, 1881. The owner OF goods which
had been stolen tod the thief that II he
would get the goods and return them he
would let him go. but that II he did not
he would turn him over TO the sheriff. On
| the trial the owner of the goods testified
to facts discriminating the party TO whom
ne had made the above promise. The eoun-
SCI Tor the defendant contended that the
J iasts constituted the owner an accom-
! pice, ana that an instruction should be
given the jury in regard to the testimony
OF an accomplish. The instruction was
refused by the trial court, but on appeal
the Supreme Court held that the conten-
lion was correct; that the owner was an
I accomplice within the meaning OF that
I term, and that the instruction asked for
( should have been given. Because the lower
court failed to charge the law applicable
10 accomplish testimony the Supreme Court
said the Judgment should be reversed.
! motorman of street ear has the right
+, to put boy who is stealing a ride off the
I car, but before SO doing he must warn
: him to get of. and If force is required it
must only be such as is reasonably neces-
sary, and If the motorman falls to use
ordinary and reasonable care, and by rea-
son of this the boy is injured, the COM
pany is liable. Nusshaum VS.. Louisville
Railway Company (51 S. W. Rep, 24s).
divorce suit In Missouri reveals the
fact that the consideration for the mar
rage OF the parties was only property and
convenience, and the Judge held that this
consideration was sufficient without show
ing the existence OF love. The husband
Drought the bill for divorce. alleging that
his wife tainted him with being old The
wife hied a cross bill, in which she ad-
mitted that her marriage was merely a
business transaction. and on the trial she
testified that she agreed to marry the
plaintiff and take care of him the rest of
MS life, in return for which his property
was to be hers at his death.
Rules promulgated by railroad COM
pany do not necessarily limit the duty of
a station agent toward the public about
the station grounds to what is prescribed
therein, nor do they necessarily fully de-
scribe the duties which the law imposes
upon the agents of the corporation at the
railway station, holds the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals First district. In
New England Railroad Company We Hyde
tltl Fed. Rep, 4e1). In the presence of
danger like that in question:" said the
court, 1.-The law requires reasonable cen
duct and reasonable action under the exist
ing circumstances of the case Whether
the conduct and action were reasonable
ana IN accordance with duty. or unreasol-
able and culpable, under the particular cir
curnstances of case like this, are ques-
tons of fact
One who Intentionally and recklessly dis
charges gun al another and death results
therefrom, or in ike manner fires gun
under such circumstances that an act Of
that character would naturally tend 10 de-
stroy human life. is decided by the Su-
preme Court of Georgia. in Ausin VS. State
t36 S. E. Rep, 52). and it was held that
when death results to one from the dis
cs.sa9se Vi d gun IN the hands of another,
who had nc intention to kill nor any liz
tention of discharging the gun. the dig
charge being caused by the reckless man.
ner in which the gun was handled the
slayer is guilty OF involuntary mansiaugb-
ter only. and the particular grade Of that
crime would be dependent upon whether at
the time and place Of the killing 1t was
lawful for the slayer to be in possession
of deadly weapon.
The case of State We. Mckee GAG Ait.
Rep, 409). recently decided by the Supreme
Court of Errors of Connecticut. contains
an interesting discussion Of the right of
to publish the truth and the
meaning of the phrase liberty Of the
press" The question arose under a statute
in Connecticut which provides that every
person who shall SELL" etc., ANY book,
magazine, pamphlet, or paper devoted to
the publication. or principally made up OF
criminal news. police reports, or pictures
and stories of deeds of bloodshed lust or
crime shall be punished" Under this
statute John A. Mckee was convicted Of
selling a newspaper. in violation thereof.
called the Waterbury Herald" Of Water
bury, Conn On the trial the constitutions
atty Of the statute was attacked on the
ground that it restricted the constitutional
right to publish the truth, and violated
the specific sections of the Constitution,
which provide that every citizen may
freely speak, write, and publish his senti-
ments on all subjects. being responsible for
the abuse Of that liberty" and that mo
law shall ever be passed 10 restrain .he
liberty of speech or of the press Tue Su-
preme Court. however, held that the statute
was valid and constitutional, and tfat 1t
did not violate any constitutional provision
relating to the freedom of the press
There is no constitutional right" said the
court. ito publish every fact or statement
that NAV be true Even the right to pub
lish accurate reports Of judicial proceed
ings is limited" The rule to be considered
in determining whether a publication Is
lawful. the court held. is whether the ma
ture OF the case is such as to make II I'M
proper that the proceedings should De
suread before the public. because OF their
immoral tendency or of the blasphemous
or indecent character of the evidence ex-
bibited: in which case the publication,
though impartial and full. will be public
offence. In deciding what is meant by
Liberty of the press" the court said:
"The primary meaning of liberty OF the
press as understood at the time our
early constitutions were framed. was Tree
dom from any censorship OF the press
from all such previous restraints upon
publications as had been practiced by
other Governments. and in early times
here to stife the efforts of patriots to-
ward enlightening their fellow subjects
upon their rights and the duties of rulers.
But this fundamental guaranty goes no
further. The right to discuss pub
lie matters stands in part, on the neces-
sity of that right TO the operation OF
government by the people, but with this
exception the right OF every citizen 10
freely express his sentiments on all SUD
iects stands on the broad principle which
supports tue eQuii ibht VI al " S<ASiS'SS
gifts of property and faculty in any pur-
ssuit of life Freedom of speech
and press does not include the abuse OF
the power of tongue or pen any more than
freedom of other action includes an in
furious use of ones occupation, business,
or nronerty The notion that the
broad guaranty OF the common right to
free speech and free thought contained In
our Constitution is intended TO erect Dui-
wark or supply place Of refuge in behalf
of the yioIators OF laws enacted for the
protection of society from the contagion