The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-19
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

/ The Few York Supreme Court In Brook
Ign, in the case OF Hyland vs.. HyIand,
has decided that man does not incur
the legal obligation to support his mother
in-law when he marries her daughter.
In this case the plaintiff. Mr.. HyIand.
has sued for a separation from his wife
on the ground that she refuses to live
with him unless her mother Is allowed to
live with them. Pending their suit, Mrs.
Hyiand asked the court to allow her
| counsel fees and alimony, But the court
refused. declaring that a man was under
no duty to support wife who would not
hVe with him, and that he was not obliged
| 10 take care Of his wife and also his
mother-in-law. Hyland also claims that
tne latter nass at him and turns his wife
against him, and generally makes life a
walking nightmare" for him.
An interesting question has been de-
! cided by the Supreme Court Of Pennsyl-
wanna In Corbin VS.. City Of Philadelphia
t4o All. Keep. 1o70). as to whether dam
| ages can be recovered for the death Of one
VINO lost his life by voluntarily mourning
peril In an effort to save the life Of an
other In this case the deceased died
from the effects Of deadly gas, which had
| accumulated at the bottom Of a trench
Where ne mad gone In an attempt to
rescue one who was in the trench, over
come by the gas. The trench had been
aug by the city for the purpose Of iocat-
ing an old sewer. and, after excavating
70 the depth of twenty-eight feet, the
work was abandoned because the gas had
become SO strong at that depth that work.
men could no longer remain at the bot
tom Of the trench.
Although the city knew the dangerous
character OF the trench, 1t gave no notice
or warning thereof, and II Is for this al
Ieged neglect OF the city tina: the plaintiff
bases her cause OF action for damages On
the day OF the accident, boys were playing
ball on vacant lot near the trench and
their ball rolled into the trench. One Of
the boys descended to get the ball, but
when he reached the bottom Of the trench
ne fell to the ground. overcome by the gas
Corbin went to his rescue, but died from
the effects Of the gas. The city commended
that 1t was not bound to anticipate the
descent OF anyone into this danger and,
therefore, was not negligent In falling to
adopt means for the exclusion Of all per-
sons from these holes. and. further. that
the deceased was guilty Of contributory
negligence in voluntarily incurriag peril In
an enort to save another.
The Supreme Court decided against both
OF these contentious. 1.-The duty Of the city
after discovering the dangerous gas In the
trench and Its effect upon the working
men," said the court was clearly TO give
notice and warning Of it to the public, and
to promptly take steps to prevent descent
into it."
On the question OF eontrfbutory neeIi-
gence the court said that "a resouer-one
who, from the most unselfish of motives,
prompted by the noblest impulses that can
impel man to deeds of heroism. faces deas.
ly peril-ougkt not to hear from the law
words OF condemnation Of his bravery be-
cause he rushed into danger to snatch
from 1t the life OF a fellow creature i'm
pertled by the negligence of another. but
he should rather listen to words of ap-
prevail. and that the court would not say,
as matter OF law. that he was negligent,
but would leave this question for the jury
to determine from all the facts and cir
cumstances.
A new and interesting question is in
volved in the recent case Of Pullman Fall
ace Car Company VS.. King decided by the
United States Circuit Court Of Appeals for
the Second district, as to the rights of q
railway passenger who by mist axe failed
to change cars, and who thereby finds him
self on road for which he has 40 ticket,
In this case the plaintiff purchased
ticket from New Orleans to New York,
which carried him from Washington to
New YORK; BY way OF the Baltimore and
Ohio Railway. He also bought sleeping
car ticket for the trip. but when he ar
rived at Washington he discovered that
the sleeper was run over the PennsyI-
vania Railway. He did not change cars,
however, and, as his ticket was for the
Baltimore and Ohio from Washington to
New York, instead OF the Pennsylvania,
be was put OF tie train at Baltimore ON
bis refusal to pay the fare.
He sued the Pullman company for dam
ages, and obtained verdict of &, 000 The
majority of the Court of Appeals sus-Z
tanned the verdict, holding that where
there has been no negligence or willful-
ness on the part Of the plaintiff, he ;aay
recover not only the increased expense to
which he may be subjected, but also COM
pensatfon for Inconvenience and loss OF
time, and for the indignity OF a public ex-
pulsion from the car
In North Carolina life insurance COM
pany sought to avoid the payment Of
policy on the ground that a provision OF the
policy declaring that failure to gay prem
ums at the stipulated period shall make
the policy void was violated The COM
pauy had notified the insured that tie
premium would be due en- the
postoff1ce or express money order. or bank
1raft, in time to reach the company on the
18th day OF July, 1898, but the insured. in
accordance with a custom which the COM
pany had acQuiesced in, sent a check by
mail in ample time to reach the company
on the 25th but which did not arrive until
the 26th Of July. The Supreme Court held
that the regularity Of the mail, pub ic
agency, Is such that it is not negligence to
rely upon it, especially when such method
of transmission has been previously the
course OF dealings between the parties.
and there was no express revocation of it.
and that the policy was not forfeited.
(Hollowell VS.. Life Ins. Co. of Va, IS s. E.,
;16)
An official form chart" containing the
names OF certain race horses, the races in
which they have taken part the jockeys
who have ridden them. the weights carried
oy them, their position, with reference to
,ther horses. during the course OF the
various races, the odds offered for and
against them. and other details OF each
-ace, calculated to show what particular
horse has accomplished under the various
conditions which each several race has inn
posed, is held by Judge Morrow OF the
United States Circuit Court, Northern dis
riot OF California, II Egbert VS.. Greenberg
100 Fed. Rep, 447), to be proper subject
or protection by copyright, although it
nay be used for gambling purposes. The
.ourt distinguished this case from those in
which the protection of court OF equity
lad been refused where the thing copy
-ighted was exclusively TO be used for i'm