The Washington times., 1901-08-03
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


innocent man whom they believed to be
the accused trying to make his escape
The administrators of the deceased
brought suit on the bond OF the sherif
for the alleged negligent killing and re-
covered $3.50, and the Court of Appeali
Kentucly) affirmed the judgme;t. TIL,
sheriff contended that he was not iabl,
on his bond. as the act of the deputies
in killing the man was not in discharge
of an official duty But the court held
that they had the authority as deputy
sheriffs to arrest the accused. and that
In the exercise of that authority they
acted Improperly, abusing the confidence
which the law imposed on them, and that.
therefore. they were guilty of misconduct
IN office, for which their principal and hi,
sureties We're liable. On the question as
10 the right of an officer to kill person
whom he believes to be felon, the court
said:
IF he has warrant against one. and
under 1t arrests another. he is liable on
his bond for the mistake thus committed.
he cannot Justify the wrongful arrest
by showing he believed and had reason-
able grounds for believing. that he was
executing 1t upon the party named in it,
IL he cannot in that way justify a wrong
ful arrest. much less should he be per-
mitted to Justify the killing of another
by showing that he had probable cause
for believing that he was shooting at the
party whom he was authorized to arrest
TO kill an escaping felon certainly requires
him to know that it is the feIon. not an
innocent party, whose life he is attempts
ing to take johnson VS.. Williams,
On reaching his destination a passenger
on a railway train alighted and started
for his home. While on the depot
grounds he was assaulted by man who
was total stranger to him. The sta
ton agent saw the assault, but did not
attempt to interfere. The injured person
was badly wounded and was unable to
work for month. In an action against
the railroad company the jury granted
him a verdict of $500. and on appeal
the judgment was affirmed. The prin-
cipal contention BY the railroad company
was that the relation of passenger ceased
when the party left the train, and that
therefore he was not entitled to the pro-
lection of the company's agents from tho
assaults of third persons not in the en-
ploy of the company. But the Court of
Civil Appeals (Texas) held that the evil
dence showed that the party was stu
on the depot grounds and premises when
the assault was made, although making
his departure therefrom, and was conse-
quently entitled to the protection due
from common carrier to its passengers.
CTexas & Pacific Railway Company VS..
Dick, So s. w. Rep. s95.)
During trial for murder the court re-
fused to allow the defendant to cenfef
We're under the rule and had been ex-
cluded from the courtroom. The defend
ant was convicted of manslaughter, and
on appeal the Supreme Court (aiississippD
granted him new trial on the ground
that the action OF the lower court in de-
nying him the privilege to confer with
his witnesses was an invasion of his con-
stitutional right. The court said that it
was often of vital Importance that both 4
defendant and his counsel should to- ;
gether confer with his witnesses in the
progress of trial. and that the right !
cannot be restricted except that the trial
court may impose reasonable limitations I
as to the length of time of the conference
johnson VS.. State. 80 So. 80 /
A notary public is liable for whateverS
may result from his Illegal GER
tifieation of an acknowledgment, accord
ing to the Supreme Court OF Missouri in
w. Rep. sl9l- In this case a notary took
an acknowledgment of mortgage. certi-
flying, as required by law. that the maker
thereof was personally known to him to
be the same person who subscribed there
to- The mortgage was in fact forgery
executed by one having no interest in
the property. The notary admitted that
on the day he certified the acknowledge
ment he did not know where the man
lived, or that he ever lived in the place
as stated in the acknowledgment, or that
he was the owner of the land described
therein. On these facts the court held
that the notary and the surety on his
bond were liable for any injuries result
ng from the making of the mortgage.
Where a husband has deposited ,.his
wife's money in bank in her own name,
With the understanding that he Will draw
I out by checks, the Supreme Court of
Elexas, asinSai In p the ease J Of Coleman vs. First
hat the bank is authorized to pdy ueon
he checks so drawn, and the fact that
he bank knew that the husband was a
= ord nd H.
money did not impose upon the bank an
additional duty to guard the wife's in
crest; nor did the bank have to see that
he money was being drawn out for her
Use before it paid his checks.
State statute prohibiting the sale of
'oleomargarine" or ..butterine' is held
~ the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Atl. Rep. 56il, to be constitutional and
lot repugnant to the interstate commerce
lause of the Federal Constitution. The
court held that il is within the power of
4 State to exclude from its markets any
manufactured in another State
which has been artiflcially coIored or
tdulterated so as to cause 1t to look like
IN article of food in general use, and the
'ale Of which may. by reason of such
oloration or adulteration. cheat the GER
raj public into purchasing that which
they did not intend to buy.
The owner of an elevator in building
S not an insurer of the safety of those
lsing the elevator holds the New York
supreme Court. appellate division: in the
case of Hubener VS.. Heide go n. Y. Supp,
115): nor is he obliged to use the greatest
iegree of care that human foresight and
ingenuity could devise to provide against
accidents. The rule as TO the liability of
common carriers of passengers does not
apply. He is only liable for the omission
If ordinary or reasonable care and eau
ion in the purchase. installation, inspec-
ion, and operation of the elevator.
The operation of cement works situated
n q manufacturing district does not con-
titute nuisance, holds the New York
upreme Court, appellate division, in the
ase of Roscoe Lumber Company VS..
Silica Cement Company go n. Y.
upp., 1880; and an injunction will not
e to restrain the operation of the works
there II is shown that the only injury
of is the dust from the plant.
he court said that if the rule sought
D be applied in this case were once es-
ablished the result would be practically
D close every factory in the State.
Where mining stock is deposited under
binding escrow agreement that IT shah
ass to a certain person on the payment
nd the price is paid by such time. the
upreme Court of Utah in the case Of
lark VS.. Campbell (65 Pac. Rep, 1850
clds that dividends declared before the
rice is paid do not belong to the pur-
laser.
a finding that a railroad company is
uilty of negligence for failing TO keep its
atfOrm lighted for fifteen or twenty min
ties to enable passengers to pass out
ifely, is held by the Supreme Court of
rkansas in the case of St. Louis. etc,
ailway Company VS.. Battle l63 S. w.
ep.. S05) not to be unreasonable.
Where a person sells beer in violation
lou and rlsfi n tC MT 1f fh.1
lie the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
the case of Quinn VS.. Commonwealth