The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-07
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
Compiled E1prossl, for The Times. }

1
ADMIRAL Dewey's nose is the subject OF
litigation in recent suit in Chicago. The
precise questions are: Has the Admiral a
mole or excrescence on his nose; and what
Is the exact size Of his nose? II he
has mole the plaintiff in the suit is en-
Titled 10 recover, and IL not the defendant
should have judgment
The suit involving this novel question
was begun before Justice Prindiville on
the 10th of March, but a change of venue
has been taken to Justice Underwood, and
| it is for him to decide the difficult prob
lem. The parties TO the suit are the
Whitehead & Hoag Company of Newark,
n. J., and Griesheimer & Co., of Chicago.
The facts are that Griesheimer & Co.
ordered and received of the Whitehead &
Hoag Company 5000 brass medals, which
in relief on one side and an advertise
ment of the firm on he other. The med
ais were to be distributed for advertising
| purposes. The defendant now refuses pay
ment on the ground that the medals show
mole or excrescence on the nose Of Ad-
! miral Dewey, and also that the nose, as
/ is shown. is much larger than the Ad-
/ mirars, being on the Cyrano de Bergerac
/ order. If, as an actual fact, Admiral
| Dewey's nose is correctly represented by
the medals the defendant will be compelled
to accept and pay for the buttons.
Under the statute in Alabama prohibit
ing the carrying of concealed weapons the
Supreme Court in the case of Dunston VS..
State (27 So. Rep, 1888 holds that per
son may be convicted OF the offence even
though at the time Of his arrest he had
the weapon on his person in his own home
and had not been out of his house The
court said that the statute created no ex-
ception in favor of place; that the mental
suggestions which proceed from constant
contact with weapons may come as we'll
when the wearer is in his Gomicile as else
where.
a novel case arising from railroad acct
dents is decided by the Supreme Court OF
Pennsylvania in McAnally VS.. Pennsylva-
nit Railroad Company t45 All. Rep, 226).
The plaintiff, intending to cross the rail-
road tracks, entered upon the space be-
tween the safety gates and the nearest
rail before the gates were'lowered. Before
he reached the track a train came along.
the gates were closed behind him, and he
stopped close to the track. The gateman,
regarding his position as perilous, called
to him TO get back" but the plaintiff re-
fused and the gateman ;hereupon sought
by force to compel him to do so. In the
tussle between the gateman and himself
he was thrown on the track and had his leg
cut off by the train. The court, in its
opinion said: This is a case of which it
may well be said that nothing exactly like
it appears in the Reports. and which must
be settled on general principles" And the
decision was that the resistance the plain
tiff made to the gateman's efforts TO save
him was the direct and proXimate cause
Of the injury received and that the COM
pany was not liable. \ dissenting opinion
was delivered by Justice Mitchell. in which
he held that the plaintiff had a right to
exercise his own judgment as to where he
would stand and to take upon himself the
risk of the consequences, and that the act
of the gateman was trespass, in The
course of his employment, for which the
railroad company was liable.
The Supreme Court OF Appeals of Vir-
ginia holds that corporation is legal
entity, wholly distinct from its stockhold-
ers, and its capital stock, franchises, and
assets may be taxed. and at the same time
a tax may be laid upon the shares of stock
in the hands of the individual holders
thereof: the stockholders are individually
distinct from the corporation though the
aggregate of all the shares constitutes the
company, and represents its franchises,
capital, and property.
The formation OF a corporation by an
insolvent TO enable him to carry on his
business, and the assignment OF his stock
to secure a bona fide indebtedness, is held
by the Supreme Court of Michigan in
Scrip VS.. Crawford (6 Detroit Legal News.
1929 not to be subject to attack by an I'M
secured creditor OF such insolvent even il
such scheme was a fraudulent intent to
defeat a levy by an unsecured creditor,
where the formation of the corporation
was regular and the stock taken by the in
corporators and other creditors was paid
for.
Judge Seaman of the Federal District
Court. E. D.. Wisconsin, holds in re Jones
go Fed. 713D that where the State statute
eXempts from execution all wearing ap-
oarel of the debtor" a bankrupt who owns
a gold watch and chain which he habitual-
~ carries upon his person in the ordinary
mode of use will be entitled 20 have the
same set apart to him as exempt. and also
that a bankrupt may claim as exempt a
Masonic uniform although ne does not
wear it as an ordinary and usual dress, but
only on special occasions.
A railroad company cannot avoid liability |
for loss Of samples in a trunk by showing |
that. under rule of which the traveller |
had 10 notice. the baGgageman had no au-
thority 10 check the same, holds the New !
York Court OF Appeals in Trimble VS. New |
York Central Railroad Company t56 n E.
532).
The Supreme Court of Michigan. in Wait
VS.. Gardiner 81 y. w, l097). holds that !
neither a county treasurer nor his deputy |
can purchase lands offered for sale for de- |
linuuent taxes and bid in by the State.
Unlike the slipper which brought Cinder-
ella fortune and happiness. a shoe brings
Milo Keep, of Michigan misfortune caus-
ing his conviction of robbery and larceny.
Before the robbery with which he was
the defendant Keep wore pointed
shoes After the robbery a pointed shoe,
which made tracks corresponding with
those near the place of the robbery
was found concealed in his barn The shoe
was tried on Keep and found to fit him,
whereupor he was found guilty. The Su-
preme Court of Michigan affirmed the case,
holding that the evidence in regard to the
shoe was admissible People VS.. Keep, 81
y. W, 109O.
The Court of Appeals OF Kentucky. in
O'Donnel. administrator, VS.. Louisville
Electric Light Company C55 S. W, 202),
holds that it is the duty of an electric light
company to make perfect insulation of its