The evening times., 1900-07-28
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


The novel question whether counsel In
his argument to the jury has a right to
shed tears has been decided by the Su-
preme Court Of Tennessee, the court hold
ing that if the tears are available it is not
only proper but the duty of counsel TO
shed them on the appropriate occasion
The weeping was done in a breach OF
promise case, by the counsel for the plain
ud, and was objected 10 by the counsel
for the defendant on the ground that the
tears unduly excited the passions and sym
pathies Of the jury in favor Of the plain
tin. and greatly pre1udiced them against
the defendant. In discussing this question
the court, through Judge Wilkes. said
Bearing upon the assignment OF error,
we have been cited to no direct authority,
and after diligent search we have been
able TO find none The coDiuet OF counsel
in presenting their cases to juries Is
matter which must lie left largely to the
ethics CT the profession and the discretion
OF the trial Judge Pc laps no two counsel
observe the same r'ls- Some deal wholly
in logic and legal '-rgU n ent. without any
establishment whatever. Others use rhe-
tOric and occasional flights Of fancy and
imagination. Others rely upon noise and
gesticu' alton, earnestness of manner and
vehemence OF speech Others appeal TO
the prejUdieeS, passion, and sympathies OF
the jury. Others combine all these modes
with garious aecOmpanimeuts Of different
kinds No castirOn rule should be laid
down To do so wCuld result that in many
cases clients would be deprived Of the
privilege OF being heard al all by counsel.
Tears have always been considered legit'-
mate arguments before the jury, and We
know Of no power or jurisdictaOn in the
trial judge 10 check them It would ap
pear to be one Of the natural rights Of
counsel which no statute or constitution
could take away IL is certainly a matter
OF the highest personal privilege Indeed.
II counsel have tears at command, IL may
be seriously QUes, toned whether IL is not his
professional duty 10 shed them whenever
proper occasion arises, and the trial Judge
would not feel constrained to interfere IN
less they are INDUCED IN 20 such excess as
70 impede. embarrass. or delay the bust
ness before the court
The refusal Of q street railway conductor
in New Jersey to ecoe9t q passenger car
rying in his arms a live goat was the
ground Of a suit for damages against the
company. The action Of the conductor was
in accordance with a regulation OF the
company fOTbidding the carrying OF ami
mails in its cars. This regulation being
er il Was reasonable or unreasonable, the
twelve men held that II was unreasonable.
and that the plaintiff had a right 10 carry
the goat with him If be so d-sired. The
Court OF Errcrs and Appeals. Saweyer, re-
yersed the verdict OF tbs jury. and held
that 1t was not for the jury 10 decide as
to the reasoEa blensSs Of the company s
regulation. bur that This was a question
for the trial court 10 determine as a mat
ter OF law
\ bicycle mas been held by the Supreme
JUDICIAL Court Of Massachusetts, not 70 be a
carriage, within the meaning Of statute
requiring ne highways TO be kept 10 re-
PAR so that the same may be reasonably
safe and convenient for travellers with
their horses. teams. and carriages az all
seasons CT the yea" The court said that
a bicycle is more properly machine than
a carriage, although for many purposes il
may be considered a vehicle OF carriage
But the court held that IL would impose
an intoIerabIe burden upon towns 10 hold
them bound to keep their roads in such
state OF repair and sTuOOthness that a b.
cycle could go over them with assured
safety. No SiIe," the court said, who
uses q wheel thiaks OF taking a ride OF
any distance without having his kit OF
tools with him"
Under a statute in California. providing
that where q husband fails TO support his
wife any pe-soa may supply her with nee
essaTiss. and recover therefor from the
husband. -he supreme Court helf that even
though tie husba Z did not know that his
wife was beng kept and provided for BY
an institution. and even though the insti-
tuition d.a not know Of his existence. he is
nevertheless liable for the neceSSGries
supplied her While an inmate cf the insti-
tuition.
The question whether. under the laws OF
Colorado a newspaper membership in or
contract with the Associated Press is sub
jet TO taxation. was recently decided in
the negative by the Court OF Appeals OF
Colorado The court held that a meInS sr-
ship in or contract with the Associated
Press was nos property within the mezn-
ing of the revenue laws OF Colorado, and.
therefore. not taxable. and that an exAmi-
nation OF the character OF the thing sought
10 be taxed and an attempted application
10 IL Of the revenue provision OF the stat
Utes. exclude the idea OF any legislative
intent or purpose tc include il II was
contended On the part OF the commissioners
that the paper was not paying its Just pro-
portion Of taxation. because its net profits
during the year were largely out OF pro-
portion 10 the amount Of actual visible
tangible property which il owned and list
I'd in its schedule given 70 the assessor.
But the conrt held that the argument was
without any force whatever. II the
argument were of any effect in any
case" said the court. who could
determine what proportion of these
profits we're due TO and flowed from
the contract with the Associated Press.
The attempted argument procests upon the
fallaciOus assumption that the publication
of the press dispatches alone contribute 10
and create the profits CT newspaper. Il
Is a matter. however. OF common know
edge. that there must be variety Uf other
things concurring to make a newspaper
profitable The skin and ability with
which il is edited. the enterprise and en-
ergy which il displays in the securing and
publication Of local news. the mechanical
makeup of the 2apec. and its typographi-
cal appearance. are all matters which have
material and important bearing upon the
success Of a newspaper"
In the case of the State vs. American
Plate Glass Company. q test csse brought
IN the superior court of Anderson. Ind, to
determine whether the statute requiring
corporations TO pay their employees weekly
is constitutional. the court upheld the stat
ute. deciding that II was valid and legal
farmer cannot be adjgGged an invol-
untary bankrupt. held the United States
Circuit Court OF Appeals Seventh district.
IN re Jerome s. Taylcr III Taylor" said
the court, was simply farmer or chiefly
a farmer. and engaged in the tIIing of the
soil, there was no authority or Jurisdiction
under the law to force him into bank
ruptcy.'
Where one not an empIeye OF railroad