The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-17
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
compiled ErpressIp for Tne rime..l

hNNftfhfNN - fbF fNf iNHt--f
at is the right and duty OF the husband
to bury his deceased wife in a suitable
manner" declares the Supreme Court Of
Minnesota In the case of Gleason VS.. War
ner Isl n. w. Rep. 206l. In this case the
wife had begun an action for divorce. and,
pending this suit, she was taken i'll and
died. At the request Of the niece OF the
deceased, the plaintiff. an undertaken. per-
formed the necessary services for burial.
and thereupon sued the husband for the
value OF his services. The Judgment was
for the undertaken, and the Supreme
Court. on appeal. sustained the Judgment,
holding that "if the husband neglects to
discharge the duty Of burying his wife, he
is liable to one who provides for her nee
essary and reasonable burial"
A photograph of an actress has been
held by Judge Wallace. Of thu United
States Circuit Court in New York, not TO
be capable OF being copyrighted.
Society and the criminal ere at war.
and capture by surprise, OF ambush. or
masked battery is as permissible In one
case as in the other" said the supreme
Court of Pennsylvania in the case OF the
Commonwealth VS.. Cressinger ga. Ati.,
Rep. 1887, and on this theory the court
held that even though confession OF a
murder is obtained from defendant by
trick. il is admissible. unless the circum-
stances are such as to suggest an INFER
ence that, through fear or hope, false
confession may have been made.
i. Is the sale Of perforated rolls used in
mechanical organs, seoiians, and other SIM
liar instruments, for the purpose oil pro-
ducing musical composition, a violation OF
his compositions? The English Court OF
Appeal, in the case Of Boosey VS.. Wright
Il CHI, 1861, has decided this question, hold
ing that the intention of the copyright act
was to prohibit the sale only Of such copies
OF piece of music as would appeal TO the
mind through the eye. and that although
the perforated rolls expressed the sheet
music in different form OF notation. they
are simply parts of the machines, and not
copies Of the sheet music, any more tnau
the cylinders Of music boxes would be. But
the court held that the marks TO guide the
performer, such IS andante moderate ETC..
came within the copyright, and could Lot
he used.
A nonresident of Illinois, although
stockhclder in a corporation owning lands
in that State, must pay license for the
privilege OF hunting game in the State
Judge Kohlsaat. OF the United States Circuit
Court has so decided in re Eberie teS Fed.
295). He holds that the sovereign owner
ship of wild game is in the State. in trust
for the benefit of its citizens, and that
statute requiring non-resldents to pay
license for the privilege of hunting game
therein is a police regulation within the
power Of the State, and not unconstitu-
tiocal.
citation on the grounds owned by the asso-
citation are held by the Supreme Court OF
New Hampshire, in the case OF Alton Bay
Camp Meeting Association VS.. Town OF Al
ton (i5 Att 95l rot to be exempt under an
act exempting the property OF the associa-
ton from taxation. The court said that 1t
was no: the intention Of the Legislature to
exempt the association from taxation as
a merchant or trader, and that there could
be no distinction between a business car
ried on in a town by the association and
similar business conducted on its camp
ground.
A judgment OF $3.50 damages against
the Western Union Telegraph Company
for transmitting a message TO plaintin
that his mother was dead, when in fact
the message should have read that his
mother had started for his residence.
was sustained by the Court OF Civic APP
peals OF Texas in the case OF the western
Union Telegraph Company VS.. Hines ,o4
S. w, Rep 627). In this case the tele-
gram delivered to the company was as fol-
lows: Mother started at . tonight but
the message received by the plaintiff read
Mother died at tonight The plaintin,
being unable to go, sent his brother TO
attend his mothers funeral, and remained
under the impression that she was dead
until she actually arrived at his residence.
He thereupon sued the company for dam
ages for the mental suffering he under
went, and on appeal, the court held that
the company had no right to inflict on
the plaintiff. through its inexcusable neg
lect and carelessness, the suffering that
he endured while believing his mother was
dead
A telephone company which failed TO de-
liver a message to a father stating that
his child was i'll and that the family we're
in need of a remittance Of money was held
by the United States District Court in
the case of Mcbride VS.. Telephone COM
pany (96 Fed. SD, not to be liable for
damages. The plaintiff. the father oil the
child, alleged that in consequence OF the
failure OF the company 10 transmit the
message he remained ignorant OF his
cn1l0 lliueSS uulii diltl Ncaehs oa'N
that because of his apparent neglect his
wife and children became estranged. his
home was broken up, and he suffered great
| mental anguish and distress. But the
| court said that Iii he 1.-THE plaintin) is a
| kind and dutifui father and husband, the
refusal on the part of his wife and chill
dren to accept a reasonable explanation oil
his apparent neglect proves conclusively
| such perversity and unlovely disposition
in them that the distress and humiiia-
| ton and loss which the plaintiff alleges
| he has suffered must be attributed TO their
| unreasonable behavior. rather than TO the
| defendants breach Of his contract.
Where an attorney law was employed
| by The defendant in a previous case in
voIying similar facts. the Supreme Court OF
| Indiana. liz the case of Bowman VS.. bow
| man (55 N. Z. Rep, 422), holds that he
| should not be allowed to participate as
attorney for the prosecution. In this case
the defendant was being sued for breach
| of promjse by his former wife from whom
| he had been divorced. The attorney who
was now conducting the breach of promise
| suit against him had been previously en-
| Moved by him to obtain a divorce against
| his wife. the plaintiff in this case, and the
| defendant now asks the court to refuse TO
| allow said attorney to appear against MIN
| In this case, because from his position in
| the divorce proceedings he obtained full
| knowledge of all the facts necessary TO the
| defence of defendants case in this suit for
breach of promise. The lower court over
ruled the motion, but the Supreme Court
on appeal held that it was the imperative
| duty of the court to exclude the attorney
| from participation in the case as attorney
\ for the prosecution. This case also pre-
sents the further peculiar feature OF
nreach NJ promise suit on a promise to re-