New-York tribune., 1900-04-10
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
| CHICAGO ANTI CIGARETTE ORDINANCE
| vALID-RAILROAD CASES.


Court to-day decided the case of Gundiing against
the city of Chicago, involving the validity of the
anti-cigarette ordinance of that city The orui-
nance attacked as unconstitutional. The opih-
ion handed down by Justice Peckham, and held
the ordinance to be unconstitutional Guno-
ling was convicted in police court of violating
city ordinance forbdding the sale of cigarettes
without license. and was fined $50 The case WIS
appealed to the State Supreme Court and was there
decided against Gundng. He then brought the
case to the Supreme Court Justice Peckham IN
his opinion said:
trade business of very frequent occurrence t
reguations shall be and to what pareular aes aaes
ons o or the ae to- AND their
mination comes within the proper exercise I OF Lne
tions are so utterly unreasonable and extravagant
in their nature and purpose that sne p,pps and tn
manner wholly arbitrary interfered with or or
1 due 81 Of 6 ag State teey TO 90
and they form subject for Federal interference
The controversy between the saranac Land and
Timber Company and the State Of New-fork over
the title to seventy-fve hundred acres Of land IN
Franklin County was decided In favor OF the State.
Justice White handed down the opinion in the
case OF the Ohio Oh Company against the state Vi
Indiana The case involved the validity OF 'ne
State law prohibiting persons from boring wells to
permit the escape of gas into the atmosphere DIS
opposed to the general interests of the community
The oil company alleged that the enforcement Vi
this violation of the Federal Consti.u'ioli
in that 1t amounted to taking property "itAou'
due process of law. The State courts upheiu tie
law and to-day's opinion sustained that view
The Court decided, in opinion by Justlce
Shiras, that receivers of railroads are not haoie
under the United States statute OF 1913 prohlolhs
railroad companies from confning live STOCK Ior
longer period than twenty-eight hours at ,iiiie m
without unloading them for rest. water. etc. Inc
decision was based the ground that the statute
is applicable companies only ana the ~ "a,
held that If there was an omission III ' " -
could only be supplied by Congress. The case was
that of the United States against the receivers OF
the Reading Railroad Company -, r. Rasbe
against Comingore as Collector of internal nSsr Res
enue in Kentucky Nj Comngofe & decneu; rVot to-
exhibit the records his office in support OF pTos
eeution BY de the state hsRey n be- d. He was
raigned for of the State e0nT.s aa o the
fered eGera 70 Darct court for writ hbeas corpus
which granted The 9pinGn this hH"de decree
Justice White handed DOWN an OPINION nn Hashve m lie
SnfSiraped G6mpany against Smith, The case IN
voved the liability Of the rair0aa pd and Ohio
Railroad Company which came into io on
Loqyo q d. Seshge and
The case was decided against the l%ouisV % any, M
violation of the Constitution In holding the com com
pany responsible the ground that IL ndu boIding
it responsible the original processing, p "n1rn nT,
was against the CINCINNATI ana LeNi"s'on '''-'
TIE Court decided the case of the "a an9en r am anu
Suburban Railroad Company agalnst - o., diractI
af1rmng the validity of the New-Jersey t law G NAV
a., IA In nv action for damages the couit H!a!
on application order physical examna,9i hol VI he
person injured by physician desigha'eo ny '
chef Fuller delivered GRRni0cn comnon IN ohe
of Clarence Mn1pny Mgaphy was
to from fifteen years mP[soiaie prs iaeterrninate mi
charge Of d Se stae 9aaer After serving
years he complained that the pena.tE ~as bn, and
imposed The State courts held aEanst lii H1,' anu
that decision was upheld by to-days OPINION; t
The opinion of the Circuit Court OF ApPeats iot f
the Vth Circuit in the case of the Nhlgnts 81
Pythias against Josephine Il Mthels hesun " in the
Withers TO recover from the Knights of Pythias
the amount of a policy of insurance on the HIe OF
her husband. The payment OF the poncy va va the
section in which Withers lived had faiied 10 MAKE
his return of premiums paid within the time re
aured by the regua ons Of the Board OF Coatp tap p
was the agent of the insured only ana not s tse
agent of the order and that therefore ne pouy
was not responsible for his neglect Inc SupIeia5e pla
Court however. refused to accept this view, hoid-
ing the order responsible for the full amount OF the
In the case of Morris Kem against the United
have no supervisory powers over the headS OF i ne
partments of the Government in discharsms
subordinates. -, ...,.. 80 .ho
Tinted States Circuit Court of Appeals for the
TIIIth Circuit in the case of the Credit Commuta-
ton Company and the Combination Bridge Gonl-
The appellants filed petitions for leave to intervene
in three foreclosure suits against the Union Pa
cifc Railway Company. The opinion wniSn wiS +hs Sas
handed down to-day by Justice snlras ho4s 5ias 5i
that the appeal could not be entertained by that
court.