The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-08-04
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

ne MAS pOSS6SSeu Oh All INSANE aha
tible impulse to do the act. On the trial
a number OF BARRIERS were introduced, who
testified that they were subject 10 a sort
of fascination while at work, which i'm
PEELED them to cut the threats OF their
customers.
Insanity experts testified that this i'm
pulse was precisely the same appeal 70 the
insanity lurking in all men, which causes
people to jump from great heights, and
which impels men working on big me-
chanicai knives to permit an arm, hand,
or finger to be cut. A number Of scien-
tifcally recorded cases were cited, among
them those Of several surgeons, who We're
compelled to rerounce their profession be-
cause the touch of the keen cutting instru-
nents excited them TO commit murder.
The barber was acquitted on the crimi-
nal charge, adJudged insane, and sent to
an asylum.
Even though a passenger a railroad
train when injured is travelling on a pass
by which he assumes all risk of accident,
whether occurring from negligence or
otherwise" the United States Circuit
Court of Indiana, in the case of Farmers
Loan and Trust Company VS.. Baltimore and
Ohio Railway Company (102 Fed. Rep,
~, holds that he may recover for the in
jury, if it is caused by the negligence of
the company The decision Of the court
rests upon the rule OF the Supreme Court
of the United States, which declares that
II Is the duty of a carrier who undertakes
to convey a passenger gratuitousIy to ex-
ercise the greatest possible care and dill
gence, and that any negligence in such a
case might well deserve the epithet of
gross negligence. Such being the law, the
court said that the contract relied upon in
this case was unavaiIing. because it is
contract 10 relieve the carrier from the
a.
and that The law Will not permit such
contract.
While the proceeds of a life-insurance
policy made payable to a wife remain in
the hands of the insurance company after
the death of her husband, the Supreme
Court, trial term New York in the case
of Amberg VS.. Manhattan Life Insurance
Company t65 n. Y. Supp. 424), holds that
they are subject to attachment by the
creditors Of the wife. The court held that
the policy had actually matured and be-
come payable by the death of the kus-
bar2. before the levy of the attachment,
and that the insurance company, at the
time of such levy. stood as debtor to
the beneficiary, the wife, and the funds
owing were subject TO the attachment lev
led thereon
On the trial of the case of House VS..
=
the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
on appeal, the owner Of the defendant
when a slave testified that the general
reputation of the defendant in the com
muHity in which he lived was good for
peace and quietude; and that he was a
lava biding citizen. This testimony was
excluded by the trial court, but, on aP--
peal the Court OF Appeals held that it
was admissible and that the action OF
the court in excluding il was clearly ii
error in this case which was one of muir
der, the evidence was circUmstantIal, enc
of the strongest facts relied on by the
prosecution being that some blood and
hair, thought to be from human being,
were found on the barrels OF shotgun
The counsel for the defendant contcnded
that the blood and hair were from Squir-
reIs, killed py the defendant the day be-
fore the homicide and in order 10 ;est
the knowledge Of the witnesses. who tgs-
titled that the hair was human, he sub
mitted 20 them some squirrel hairs Afser
examining these several OF the witnesses
testified that they were human hairs. and
others expressed deH5t- The counsel then
asked the court 10 allow the jury tosin-
spect the hair, but The court refused this
request This ruling, the Court of AP-
peals held to constitute error, and 10 be
in violation Of the general rule that cloth
ing. diagrams, documents. and evidence Of
that character shall be permitted TO so 20
the jury.
An infant sixteen months Of age is held
By the Supreme Court Of South Carolina.
Masm VS.. Southern Railway Company t36
So Rep. 440l. not to be capable of be
coming guilty OF contributory negligence
and where il goes upon railroad track
it cannot be considered a tresDasseT or
wrongdoeT. It was the duty OF the rail-
road company. the court held, to keep
reasonable lookout and discover the infant
in time TO prevent injury, and if it failed
in this respect and in consequence the
infant was killed. 1t is liable TO damages.
Where a person was injured in street
railway accident and the railway company
sent doctor TO examine him and serious
injuries are claimed 10 have resulted from
following The directions Of the doctor, the
Supreme Judicial Court OF Massachusetts.
ir-the case of Pearl vs. West End Street
Railway (57 y. E. Rep. 339). holds that
the railway company is not liable. The
plaintiff claimed that his left leg was in
iured so that he could not stand on it. and
that in complying with he doctors re-
quest that he try to stard on 1t, he fell
and thereby became subject 10 hysteTical
troubles. The court said, in part: 1t
would be a strong thing TO say that the
evidence warranted finding anyone respon-
sible for the accident, excetst the plaintiff
himself, The doctors request that he
should try standing on his left leg was not
medical advice or direction upon a matter
as 10 which the plaintiff had put himself
in the Doctors hands. On the contrary
it came from one who avowed!y was in
an adverse interest, and who had no au-
thority of any kind. . But further,
the doctor was not an agent or servant cf
the defendant in making his examination.
He was an independent contractor There
is no more distinct calling than that of
the doctor, and none in which the employe
is more distinctly free from the control OF
direction of his employer
In London fortune teller was tried and
convicted under the. statute which pro-
vides punishment for every person pre-
tending or protesting TO tell fortunes. or
using any suhtle~craft. means or device by
paimistry or otherwise to deceive or i'm
pose on any of Her Majesty's subjects It
has been held Greg. vs.. Entwistle, 1 @.
r., S46) that a person who, without any
intent 10 deceive. pretends 10 tell the for
tune Of a person who knows that it IS
merely a game, and is party to the pre-
tence, is not guilty; but it is otherwise
where there is serious intent, and the
fortune teller believes in his own powers
Where a witness has testified in direct
examination to the general reputation for
truth and veracity of a person, and who
refuses, on cross examination, to give the
names of the persons with whom he claims
to have discussed said reputation. or to
answer, on cross examination, questions
relating to important matters in his direct
examination, the Appellate Court of TII-