The Washington times., 1901-10-19
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

a statute in the code governing its pro-
ceedinss which 1t followed, although IL
had not been given In the instructions BY
the court. The defendant was convicted
and his counsel entered motion Cor a
new trial on the ground that the jury
had no right to go outside instructions of
the court and follow the statute In the
code The statute referred TO provided
that In case the jurymen agree as 10 IN.
quit OF a prisoner, but are unable 10 fix
the punishment. they may return a YER
dict to that effect, stating that they find
the prisoner guilty as charged and allow
the presiding judge to fix the punishment.
Judge POWELL overruled the motion for a
new trial on the ground that the public
mas no right to know the proceedings
Wlthil the Jury-room. and also that an
examination OF the code was rot a vio-
iaticn OF the instructions.
Does bequest in will of house "and
the furniture and all the contents there
Of include safe in the house containing
securities amounting to sii4ooo? Judge
Chester, OF the New York Supreme Court,
special term. in the case of Fenton vs.
Fenton al y. Y. Supp. 1889. holds that
1t does not His decision was placed on
TWO grounds: First. that from an exam
nation of the will and codicfl II was
ciear that the testator did not SO intend.
second, mat the general phrase, contents
Household furniture" mus. be confined
TO things of a like kind, and that the safe
ana contents would not be consonant with
furniture.
The word ''riotous' as used in an ordI-
nance providing that every person who
shall act in a noisy. riotous. or disorderly
manner shall be deemed guilty of misde-
meanor. is held by the Supreme Court Of
washington. In the case OF State VS.. Ken
nan ma tsS Fac, Rep, 62o), 10 be employed in
ferrous. and has no allusion to the tech
nical crime of riot.
marriage by Russian Jew in Russia
with his niece, though lawful and valid
in Russia, will not be recognized in Penn
sylvania. holds Judge Mcpherson. of the
United States District Court in the case
of United States VS.. Rodgers Q0e Fed
Rep, $3.50 because such marriage be-
tween uncle and niece Is declared in
cestuous in Pennsylvania, and the parties
would be subject to Indictment In the
criminal courts, and to punishment by
.lne and Imprisonment In the peniten-
rule undoubtedly is that a marriage
which which Is valid under the laws OF
the country where II is celebrated is
valid everywhere, but that the present
case falls within the exception that a
country is not required by the rule OF
comfy TO recognize a foreign marriage
tive of the criminal laws of the first
country.
The old common law rule that a wife
cannot be convicted for crime commit
ted in the presence and at the instiga-
tion of her husband has been invoked In
murder case in Mississippi. where the
defendants are husband and wife. On
the trial, the jury found the husband
guilty of murder, and fixed his punish
ment at Imprisonment for life, and found
the wife guilty of manslaughter giving
her two years in the penitentiary The
counsel for the woman now contend that
she is entitled to be discharged, because
she acted under the suggestion of Eer
husband, and in his presence. The circuit
judge overruled the motion for a new
trial. and the question will have to be
decided by the Supreme Court. State
VS.. Leroy and Mammie Harper Circuit
Court, Chickasaw County, Miss)
An ordinance in San Francisco making
1t unlawful for any person to have in his
possession any lottery ticket has been
held by the Supreme Court of California,
in ex parte McClain (66 Pac. Rem so, to
be valid a reasonable police regulation
Against the validity of the ordinance IL
was urged that Ii is unreasonable to
make the mere possession of the lottery
ticket an offence, without reference to
any ultimate intent of the possessor. But
the court said that the answer to the OBJ
lection was that in constituting the ordi-
nance the courts would recognize the rule
that general terms should be so limited
i'll their application as not to lead to in
justice or oppression Ut an absurd con-
sequence
1t is not reversible error FOR {, court
to refuse to permit a party to- Introduce
evidence of the general good. character
of mis- own witnesses, who are Chinese,
where there has been no attempt.to i'm
peach their character, holds the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals, in the
case Of Woey-Ho VS.. United States Qo9
Fed. Rep, SSS). The court said that IA
court is not at liberty to arbitrarily and
without reason reject or discredit the tes-
timony OF witness upon the ground that
he Is Chinaman, an Indian, negro, or
white man. All people, without regard
to their race, color, creed. or country
whether rich or poor, stand equal before
the law"
Where an employer published in regard
to a discharged employe that he with
others had been dispensed with. that the
reason for the change was their general
careless manner of attending to the bust
ness, and that their places would be filled
with competent parties, who would at
tend to the affairs in a more business
like manner. the Supreme Court special
term, New York, in the case of Ratzel
VS.. New York News Publishing Company
al n. Y Supp, 1910. holds that such
publication tends to injure the persons in
business, and is therefore Ibelous per Sc.
The Circuit Court of the United States
is without jurisdiction to enjoin g State
from the enforcement of its own laws,
and cannot, therefore restrain the Attor-
ney General from prosecuting an action
for the State, holds the Supreme Court
of Nebraska In the case of State VS. Chi
cago, etc, Railway Company (S7 N. w.
Rep, 1s3).
Permitting a public city sewer to be or
remain in such defective condition as
to become a nuisance, with resulting in
jury to realty, gives a cause of action
against the municipality in favor of the
owner Of such realty, holds the Supreme
Court of Georgia in the case of Massen-
gale vs.. City of Atlanta (39 s. z. Rep.
5TS), and on the trial thereof he may re-
cover for all damages to his property
which have occurred within four years of
the fling of his petition.
Where a railroad company permits dry
grass and broom straw to accumulate on
its right of way, and a house situated on
the right of way is destroyed by fire
caused by a spark from such company's
engine lighting and igniting the grass and
straw, the Supreme Court of North Caro-
lima, in the case of Shields VS., Norfolk,
ETC., R. Co. (39 S. Z. Rep, $50, holds that
the company is liable for the loss of the
house.
The assistance of chemistry and the
testimony of expert witnesses are not
necessary to show the existence of blood,
owing to the familiarity OF all persons
competent to testify as witnesses with its
o,,,aa rapea dac;daS tho Srnrprne COurt of