The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-23
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

| August Miller played a c cornet in the
| Independence Band Of Evansville. Ind. He
| lent his horn to a man employed to fill a
| vacancy in the band for one afternoon
| engagement in a suburban town. On the
return Of the band ii was discovered that
| the man with the cornet was absent and
| that the horn could not be found. About a
| year afterward Miller saw the horn in a
pawnhrcker's shop in Evansville and de-
manded that it be given him. The Appel
late Court of Indiana held that Miller was
entitled to the return Of the cornet with
out being required to repay the loan, on
the ground that the pawnbrolxer's possess
sion was not conclusive ownership but
that when he bought the horn he acted at
his peril. and should have enquired into
the real ownership or at least into the
right of disposition.
A divorce obtained in South Dakota by a
citizen OF Massachusetts, who went to
South Dakota for such a purpose. lived
there ninety days, as required by the stat
ute. and secured the divorce for cause
which would not authorize a legal separa-
ton by the laws of Massachusetts,. is held
by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa-
chusetts to be void in that State for all
purposes. The finding of the single JUS
tice," said the court clearly means that
the man did not get a domicile in South
Dakota. He meant to stay there ninety
days, and such further time, perhaps, as
was necessary. and then he meant to come
back to Massachusetts. 1t is true that he
meant to do all that was needful 10 get a
divorce. but he was mistaken as to what
was needful. In other words, he meant
only to do what he supposed to be needful
and that was not enough. Whether. IL he
mad known what was needfuI, he would
have meant that and would have done it,
Is speculation In fact he did not mean
or do it on the facts so far stated.
1t is clear that the finding OF the South
Dakota court in favor of its own jurisdi =
tior upon an ex parte hearing would not be-
conclusive. but that the facts would be
open to examination. 1t will b,
borne in mind that on the facts before US
tie case is not one in which the Legisla-
ture of South Dakota has undertaken to al
low the granting of divorce. Ii is one in
which the court of that State has been de-
ceived. and in which 1t would have refused
to act, and would have had no right to act,
had 1t known the facts" In this case the
question arose in 4 contest between the di-
vorced wife ard the second wife as to VITO
was entitled to administer the es ate of the
the former was.
A remark by one Of the jurors to his fell
low jurors in a trial for murder, thas il
they all knew something he knew, and he
was allowed to tell it, they would come
over to him." was held by the Supreme
Court OF Tennessee not to vitiate verd ct,
especially when the complaining Jurors say
they were influenced to agree to verdict
by another and very unworthy consdera-
ton.
Evidence that $1,000 pounds o, book paper.
weight to be on basis "37x4S SO pounds
500 sheets" has particular meaning Pc
culiar to the paper trade; that such an
order means 1000 reams, Of ffty-three
pounds to the ream; and that it was the
usage, where weight is specified. to in
clude the weight Of wrappings nece sa
safely to transport j.. unless otherwise
specified, is held by the Supreme Court OF
Indiana TO be admissible for the purpose OF
showing VIVA. was meant by the terms
Used.
In an action for breach of promise in
tennessee decided by the Supreme Court
the plaintiff alleged that she and the de-
Iendant entered into contract to marry
and fixed the date for the wedding and
hat before the day arrived. at the request
If defendant. who had divorced wife still
living. and on account Of religious scrupIes
IN his part. they postponed the marriage
until the divorced wife, whom he repre-
;ented to be In very bad health and not
ong to live, should die, but that the de-
endant. while the divorced wife was still
living. married another woman, thereby
'reakinS his agreement with the plaintiff
IN the trial of the case a verdict for 81, 500
amages was awarded plaintiff. An APP
zeal was taken to the Supreme Court,
which sustained the judgment. The de-
endant contended On appeal that the con-
ract was void for "indefniteness and un-
certainty" void because in restraint Of
marriage. void because against public poll
cy. The Supreme Court denied all of these
holding that the contract was
absolutely certain in every element ex-
.ept as to the time of the contamination.
md that it was reasonably certain in that
.egard, and that it was in favor of mar
'iage rather than in restraint Of it AS
o the argument that the contract was
against public policy because its ulti-
nate ccnsummation was by its terms.
made to depend upon and to follow the
ieath of the defendants divorced wife, and
n that way to hold out an induce nent to
he destruction of her life. the curt said
hat "at first view there is seeming force
n the proposition, yet the court. after ma
ure consideration, does not regard it as
ound in law. Only religious
cruples prevented an immediate consum-
nation. and it can hardly be conceived
hat persons actuated by so high a mo-
i've could be tempted to end the postpone
nent By committing murder. The agreed
elay. self-imposed and self-terminable at
ny moment. as it was. cannot properly be
aid to imply illegality of purpose or to af-
ord any iuducement to crime.
In order 10 entitle al insurance company
D recover back money paid upon policy
( Insurance. the Supreme Court OF Georgia
olds that Il is incumbent upon the conf
any to show afiirmatively that. after
Making payment. it discovered evidence
howing itself not liable on the policy: and
UGH evidence must consist Of proof show
ny that. because OF the fraud Of the in
ured the policy was alb initio void. or
hat after it was issued he was guilty OF
onduct either vitiating the policy or rem
ering it unconscionable for him TO re-
eve money thereon. and fraululentiy coli
called from the company, al the time OF
eceiving payment. the fact-that he had
cen guilty of such conduct.
When the corporate limits OF city are
0 extended as 10 embrace therein por-
oG G. a public highway, and bridge over
stream crossing the highway, the SUI
rene Court OF Georgia holds that the
municipal authorities at once acquire the
light to exercise Jurisdiction over the
ridge and are chargeabie win the duty
I keeping it in repair after the county
uthorities have expressly re!inquisnsu
ma