The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-07

mirals. being on the Cyrano de BerseTac
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. 1889 holds that a 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 eN-
ception in favor of place; that the mental
suggestions which proceed from constant
contact with weapons may come as well
when the wearer is in his dOmicile as else
where.
\ 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, '26).
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 train came along
the gates were closed behind him, and ne
stopped close to the track. The gatemah,
regarding his position as perilous, called
to him to get back but the plainthI re-
fused. and the gateman thereupon sought
by force to compel him to do so. In the
tuseIe 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 1t
may well be said that nothing exactly Ike
il 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 proNimate 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 right TO
exercise his own judgment as to where he
would stand and 10 take upon himself the
risk Of the consequences, and that the act
Of the gateman was a trespass, in The
course Of his employment, for which the
railroad company was liable.
The Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Vir-
ginia holds that a corporation is legal
entity. wholly distinct from its stockhold-
ers. and its capital stock. franchises, and
assets NAV 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
4 BY the Supreme Court Of Michigan in
I scripp vs.. Crawford (6 Detroit Legal News.
| 1O2Sl not to be subject to attack by an IN
/ secured creditor OF such insOlvent, even II
/ 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 Z. D.. Wisconsin. holds in re Jones
~ Fed. 773j that where the State statute
/ exempts from execution all wearing ap-
pareI Of the debtor" a bankrupt who owns
a gold watch and chain, which he habitual-
Iy carries upon his person in the ordinary
mode OF use. will be entitled to have the
same set apart 10 him as exempt and also
/ that bankrupt may claim as exempt a
wear it as an ordinary and usual dress, but
! only on special occasions.
/ A railroad company cannot avoid liability
for loss Of samples in trunk by showing
/ that under a rule of which the traveller
had 10 notice the baggageman had no au-
I thority 10 check the same, holds the New
I York Court Of Appeals in Trimble vs.. New
. York Central Railroad Company tJ6 y. z.
532).
The Supreme Court of Michigan. in Wait
| We Gardiner 81 y W. 1091 holds that
neither county treasurer nor his deputy
can purchase lands offered for sale for de-
rnouent taxes and bid in by the state.
Unlike rhe slipper which brought Cinder-
ella fortune and happiness, a shoe brings
Milo Keen of Michigan. misfortune. caus-
ing his conviction OF robbery and larceny
BEFORE the robbery with which he was
charged 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 ht him
whereupon 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. 1880.
The Court of Appeals OF Kentucky. in
O.DonneI administrator. vs.. Louisville
Electric Light Company t55 5. W, 202J
holds that il is the duty Of an electric light
company to make perfect insulation Of It's
wires at places where persons have the
tight 10 20 for business or pleasure.
Where timber cut by a trespasser is
made into railroad ties and sold to rail
road company, the Court Of Civil Appeals
Of Texas. in the case OF Missouri. etc.
Railroad Company vs.. Starr SO S W.
3q3l holds that the owner Of the timber
can recover the value Of the ties int,
which the timber was made, and is no
limited to The value of the timber In tree
as they stood upon the ground. The cOur
lid there was a decided conflict OF au
thority in the various States on this ques
lion but that It followed the decision o
the United States Supreme Court in thu
case of Bolles WOOdenware Company VS.
United States 006 L. S, 432l.
pedestrian who. without necessity, an6
for his own pleasure and convenience, de
narts from the sidewalk and street cross
ines upon which he would have avoided
injury and crosses street diagonally, AM
. is injured by slipping into catchbasli
, which lay between the crossings, IS he'll
by the supreme Court of Ohio. in City o
, navton vs.. Taylors administrator 100 y
f 4sO). to have assumed the risks "hlel
Law in the path which he thus chose.
A married woman in Virginia is held b,
the Virginia Supreme Court OF Appears Il
S Hirtb VS.. Hirth to be now, as at common
law. incapable of making a contract unieS
she owns some separate estate at the TIN