The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-30
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

be a light meal by judge in Toronto. Can
ada A restaurateur was arrested for sell
ing ice cream in violation of the Sunday
law forbidding the sale of unnecessary ar
ticles on that day. But the Judge held
that the statute had not been violated by
the sale of the cream. saying that he was
OF 'the opinion under all the circum-
stances Of the case that supplying the
persons with ice cream was supplying a
refreshment in the nature Of light meal
IN the ordinary course of the restaura-
under the statute"
libel suit brought by the sheriff of
Shiawassee County, Mich, against a
Methodist clergyman residing at owosso.
Mich. arising out of a game Of baseball
played on Sunday, is decided by the su-
preme Court of Michigan. BY statute in
Michigan games Of baseball are forbidden
on Sunday, and when a game was an
nounced through the papers for GER
tain Sunday, the Methodist clergyman
called up the sheriff by telephone the
night before, and notified him that tho
game was advertised to take place. The
stop the game, but nevertheless it was
played. Then the clergyman published an
open letter to the sheriff In two local
newspapers. charging him, in severe Ian
guage, with Intentional neglect OF duty.
Thereupon the sheriff began an action for
libel and recovered a verdict for 81 600
$50 damage to his office and $3.50 for dam
age to mis- feelings. The Supreme Court
reversed this Judgment, holding that it was
the duty of the sheriff to prevent the game.
and If the players persisted In proceeding
with it it was his duty promptly to arrest
them. The court held further that statute
forbidding ball games on Sunday is con-
stituticnal.
In an action for SANDER, in which tie
! defendant accused the plaintiff OF stealing
his bicycle. a letter written by the defend-
ant to the superintendent OF police in re-
/, gard to the alleged theft, and giving il
! formation as to the whereabouts of the
defendant. was introduced by the plain
tiff for the purpose OF showing malice on
I the part Of the defendant. On appeal the
: Supreme Court tMichigan) held that it
| was error to admit the letter. as ii was
| privileged communication between the de-
! PENDANT and the police Defendants prop
| erty was stolen" said the court, land it
! was not only his privilege and right but
/ his duty to give to the detectives, who,
in this case, were especially appointed for
! the purpose, all information ne had-and
| il he had suspicious of any person, to state
| who the person was and the reasons for
| suspecting him. Such communications are
| made in the strictest confidence, and are
| as sacred, in the eye of the law, as the
communications between client and law
| yer. or patient and physician" And the
court held that contrary rule would be
| opposed to public policy.
! In suit against railroad company to
| recover damages for injuries received in
a collision, where there was evidence that
/ the plaintiff sustained serious bodily in
F.! juries, the United States Circuit Court of
! Appeals. Ninth circuit, in Denver, held
! that an instruction was proper which
! allowed the jury TO fnd damages sor in
jury occasioned by fright. The court held
that although damages might not be re-
covered for fright alone, without any
bodily injury, yet where the evidence
shows that there was any fright or shock,
which resulted from bodily injury in con-
nection with an accident in which there
was an accompanying explosion, fire,
wreehase of the cars, and other surround
ing ctrcums tarc=s directly connected there
with and solely attributable thereto. there
was no substantial reason why all damages
naturally and reasonably and approxi-
mately arising therefrom should not be re-
covered. We all know" said the court,
by common knowledge, that serious re-
suits may naturally follow from bodily
injuries, without breaking an arm, or leg,
or bones OF the body. The body and mind
are so intimately connected that the mind
is very often directly and necessarily
affected by physical injuries. A nervous
shock, without a blow to the person,
might under some circumstances be so
great as to cause bodily injuries"
In the case of Stevens vs. O'NeilI, de-
cided by the New York Supreme Court,
appellate division. it was held that the
plaintiff, who, while looking at some
watches in the store of the defendant. was
told By the clerk that watch was MISS
ing and that she would have to be searched,
and who was thereupon surrounded by
persons employed by the owner to de-
tect crime. and substantially accused OF
being thief with the statement: You
will have to be searched" and was taken
to room and searched. might very prop
erly be considered BY the jury to have
been uniawfuliy restrained or detained;
and the court further held that because
the plaintiff went to a room to be searched
she did not necessarily go willingly, in
view Of the fact that she was surrounded
by superior force, to contend against
on being told what she had to do surren-
dered Internationally.
On the question as to whether punitive
damages could be allowed, the court said:
Punitive damages are given not only as
punishment to the defendant for wrongful
act. but also warning to others. Al
though there was no evidence OF any eX-
press malice against this plaintiff individ-
ually. the act was done in pursuance of q
system which had been adoDted in that
store; and If this system was such as to
place an innocent customer in the position
in which the plaintiffs evidence shows that
she was placed. the jury had the right to
say that the results Of this system were Of
such a character as to require rebuke by
way OF punitive damages. in order that in
nocent people should not be placed in the
position which this plaintiff was placed
without any fault upon her part"
The trial OF a case in a Justices court
before jury Of less than six persons has
been held by the Supreme Court of Michi-
gan not to be in violation OF the law. The
court said that the constitution of the
State provides that jury in court OF
record may consist of less than twelve
men. and that the defendant might entirely
waive a trial by jury. and hence could con-
sent to a trial by less than six men. This
was case charging the defendant with
having committed perjury. and In charging
that offence the information referred TO the
wrong section of the statute. but the court
held that this did not render the Informal
t;on invalid: and the court further held
that the complaint was not void by tho
failure OF the justice to sign the Jurat,
where ii appeared that the complaining
u,itness was sworn to the complaint, and