The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-12
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


149), reviews certain military rules and
regulations of the army and the law rela-
tive to the power Of the General Govern
ment to procure the release OF one OF its
officers or agents when held in custody
by the process Of State court.
In this case two corporals In the United
States Army. acting under the order Of
tneir superior officer, shot and killed a
neefng deserter whom they were trying TO
capture. They we're tried by court
martial and acquitted. Thereafter the
state tNebraska) charged them with the
crime OF murder and held them for trial
a petition was filed by the defendants to
the United States Circuit Court for their
release from the custody Of the State On
consideration Of the petition the United
states Circuit Court held that the killing
py the petitioners was an act done In the
performance Of their duty as soldiers OF
the United States, and that, therefore,
the state courts are without Jurisdiction in
criminal proceeding to determine wheth-
er they exercised proper care. Judgment,
and discretion in the discharge of their
duty, and the petitioners are entitled to
be discharged.
The court further held that the finding
and judgment Of mot guilty by a mill
tary court-martial is not a bar to the
prosecution for the same act by the civil
authorities; that an order given by a
military officer to his private should to
obeyed by the private. and will be his full
protection In criminal prosecution, IN
less the illegality of such order Is so
clearly shown on its face that man Of
ordinary sense and understanding would
know when he heard 1t read or given that
the order was Illegal. that the Govern
ment OF the United States, and CT a State,
though exercised within the same terri
tory, occupy different planes. and the
criminal laws Of the one have no appIIca-
tion to acts performed under the authority
OF the other in respect to matters solely
within its control. Laws, rules and regu-
lations for the efficiency and discipline OF
the Army Of the United States are matters
vested by the Constitution solely In the
General Government; an officer or agent
OF the United States who does an act
which is within the scope Of his authority
as such ofiicer or agent cannot be held to
answer therefor under the criminal laws
OF another and different government.
When an officer Of the United States L.
held In custody by the process of State
court for an act done within the authority
conferred upon him by the laws Of the
United States, the United States Govern
ment may protect itself by procuring the
release OF such officer through its judicial
department.
In Indiana action was brought on the
bond OF licensed retail liquor dealer in
the case Of State ex rel. Endricks (Knotts.
So N. E. Rep. 941). on the ground that
the plaintiffs husband was killed in the sa-
loon OF the defendant. and as the bond, In
conformance with the statute. provided
that the defendant would keep an orderly
and peaceable house and would pay all
judgments for civil damages growing out Of
unlawful sales. the killing of her husband
IN the saloon constituted a breach Of the
bond. But the Supreme Court Qndianal
holds that a cause of action does not lie.
as 1t does not appear that the killing was
an effect reasonably to be expected from
permitting the house to be disorderly, nor
that it was caused by Illegal sales of liquor
Under the Illinois statute making both
husband and wife jointly and separately
liable for family expenses. Judge Kohlsaat
Of the United States District Court. North
ern district of Illinois. in Houghteling vs.
Walker ti00 Fed, 253), held that the wife
is liable for the rent of a house occupied
as family residence, although she did not
sign the lease.
decision was recently given In the
Sheriff Court Edinburgh. Scotland, involv-
ing rather Interesting question of the
law Of gifts. The defendant had met two
young lady friends at a bazaar. at which
there was to be a drawing for piano.
He purchased two tickets. In his own
name. and gave one to each Of the young
ladies. One OF these tickets won the piano.
but as the defendant had purchased the
ticket in his own name the plano was de-
livered TO him instead of to the young lady
to whom he had given the ticket. AS he
refused to give her the piano she began
legal proceedings to recover It on the
ground that it was an executed gift from
him to her. The court, however. decided
against her holding that the gift was not
In writing. as required by the law of Scot
land, and that no notice had been given
by the defendant to the committee on the
drawing that he had given the piano TO
her u0S L. T., 5s3).
Although real estate agent who under
takes to serve both parties to transac-
tion cannot collect compensation from
either. the Court of Common Pleas, West
moreland county Pennsylvania. in Max
well VS.. West $40 Pitts. L. j.. 340) holds
that both vendor and vendee can bind
themselves by an express agreement to pay
commissions IL 1t was understood at the
time that the agent represented both
parties.
Under a decision by Judge Williams Of
the Milwaukee CWis.) Superior Court. in
Schmidt vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway,
a car conductor has no right to compel
passengers standing In the aisle of a
crowded car to move forward" The
plaintiff In this case was standing in the
aisle of crowded car and was ordered
by the conductor to move along. but re-
fused to do so. whereupon the conductor.
with the assistance of the motorman. put
him off the car. He began suit against
the company for $1,000 damages. and at
the close Of the evidence the court al
lowed q verdict in his favor. Judge Will
Jams held that a person standing " the
AISLE IL he does not block the AISLE las
the same right to his place as a passen-
ger to the seat he occupies. and that the
conductor has no more right to compel the
one to take another place than the other;
and it was further held that as the PAS
sengers board car they must find places
for themselves or adap. themselves to the
congested condition Of the car. and that
a passenger standing cannot be forced to
move forward TO make room for incoming
passengers.
The appointment for life OF medical
officer Of an insurance company by its
president and actuary. under bylaw Civ
ing them power to appoint and fix the
compensation Of employees. is held by the
New York Court OF Appeals in Carney VS..
The New York Life Insurance Company to
be an unreasonable exercise OF power. and
the contract made with the medical Of
ficer is held to be void and one that should
not be executed.
The Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey. in Mayor. etc. of City Of Newark