The evening times., 1900-06-09
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

The Court of Civic Appeals Of Texas. In
Roach vs.. Malotte (56 S. w. Rep. 70D,
holds that mistakes of a voter cannot be
corrected; that when a ballot has once
been deposited in the box. the legal status
OF that voter becomes permanently fixed
and cannot be changed; and where a voter
0y mistake casts the ballot he had not
intended 10 vote. and the judges open the
ballot box, take out the ballot, and allow
him TO cast another, the latter cannot be
counted. At will not do" said the court,
to allow ballot boxes to be opened by
anybody. Their contents should be held
as sacred from the touch OF man. except
for the purposes provided by law, as was
the ark OF the covenant; for as the one
contained the will Of God the other con-
tains the voice and will Of the people.
which, in our republican government con-
stitute the palladium Of our liberties"
II a college fraternity Illegally attempts
to withdraw the charter of a chapter, and
In order for the chapter to defend itself it
becomes necessary for il to disclose the
constitution, and TO divalge certain secrets
OF the fraternity, the Supreme Court APP
pellate division, In Heat0a VS.. Hull ga
y. \. Supp. 279), holds that the acts Of the
chapter do not authorize the forfeiture OF
its charter on account Of such disclosures.
because they were rendered necessary by.
the fault of the fraternity itself
publication in which a member OF
Cigarmakers' union Is called "scab" and
Is accused OF violating the rules OF the
union in conducting his business, is held by
the Supreme Court. appellate term, in
Prince VS.. S0ciafistie Cooperative Pub.
Assn ga n. Y. Supp. 2s5l. to constitute
libel per sc.
Where defendant in a criminal proceed
ing IS negro and moves 20 quash the in
dictment on the ground that the jury com
missione,s selected no persons OF color or
of African descent kTown as negro" TO
serve on the grand jury, but, on the con-
trary. excluded from the list Of persons to
serve as such grand jurors all co,Ored per-
sons and offers to introduce witnesses to
prove these allegations, and the court,
having declined TO hear any evidence on
the subject. the Supreme Court Of the
United States. in Carter VS.. State OF Texas
go Supreme Court Rep. 6S7) holds that
the omission Of the bill Of exceptions 10
give the names Of the witnesses whom the
defendant proposed or intended 10 call. or
10 state their testimony in detail cannot
deprive the defendant OF the benefit of his
exception to the refusal Of the court to
hear any evidence: and that the defendant
has been denied a right duly set up and
claimed by him under the Constitution and
laws Of the United States
The Supreme Court Of the United States.
in Petit vs.. State Of Minnesota go Sup.
Ct. Rep, 666l. holds that the proviso TO
re act OF the Legislature declaring that
as matter Of Law. keeping barber shops open
on Sunday is not a work OF necessity or
charity. does not constitute such an arbi-
trary classification as 10 bring the Law into
conflict with the Federal Constitution.
The Supreme Court OF Indiana. in Masten
rs. Indiana Car and Foundry Company (5T
y z. Rep. iiS). holds that it is not unlaw-
ful for the Attorney General Of that State
to engage in the private practice Of law.
Leaves torn from family Bible are held
by the Supreme Court OF Iowa, in Hall VS..
Cardell (S2 y. ". Rep, SD. TO Be admiEsi-
bic to prove the age Of a person the date OF
whose birth was entered in the Bible
The Supreme Court Of Appeals in Smith
VS.. Norfolk and Western Railway Com
pany (S5 5. E Rep. 334l holds that rail-
road company is liable 10 u passenger on
one Of its trains for a willfuI assault and
battery cOmmi ted on sucn passenger by
he conductor in charge Of such ,rain
such an assault is breach OF the duty OF
protection which such company owes its
passengers.
Photographs OF a railroad wreck. taken
By an artist. are held by the United States
Circuit Court Of Appeals in Denver vs..
r 7. r. Company Cl00 Fed. Rep. 1851 10
he admissible in evidence in a suit for
damages upon proof OF their correctness.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois. In White
vs.. Wagar (5T v f. Rep, ZI6) holds
that labels and trademarks are not the sub
iect Of forgery at common law. and that
the criminal code nowhere provides that
the stimulation OF trademarks and labels or
names and signatures IS forgery: and tha-.
therefore search warrant issued by a
justice OF the peace 10 search for labels
and trademarks alleged TO have been
forged WAS void