The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-06
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

y
wbar. q, ,ho .,,..
~ e"e "sAns y. cnanse per-
son receives py mistake package or
awen.y 70 solo coins; instead OF pack
| the excesx of chang. ,ha f.o,,rt ~ A.
-, - - - ~
peais VI hen.uchy, IN tne case OF cooper
et al. vs.. Commonwealth go s. W. Rep.
$3.50, holds that he is not guilty OF lar
| ceny. unless he kneu, Of tho o,,.rnsvr,ant
., en- 49, :, -, 49, a.,
II was iiaue' anu tuen N
tended TO convert the money to ! is own
use. This question arose on the following
facts: Sandy waReeuer and three others
80. ,,,,,,.,,,,.,, a., -.
N0' ie'eu III iNeisaueNy fof ."e crime
Oh grand larceny. me TOUR mad been
services. In order to divide the money
eot1alIv among themselves they went 10
the Rank of Tniontown to have q of the
money changed into smaller denomina-
tions SANDY wapqener wont into tho
bank and to the cashiers counter handed
him the e. and asked for the change Tha
cashier gave him two haIf dollars and n
roll OF small-sis.d coin wranned in naner
saying: There are twenty pjckels'
Waggeners without kpovip0 what x.as in
the paper. except from the statement Of
the cashier, rejoined his companions and
tue uour together went 10 secluded spot
nartasa thn, a,s,s IN opening tn9
twenty s. gold coins Instead ~ nic,.ais
Waggener remarked, Boys, banks don't
correct mistakes, and the money was
IN, NV issu among ,ne TOUR ana appropriated
" tnel.- IN tne trial the Jury was IN
structed substantially That II the defend
ants received the money under mutual
MISTAKE, ana atter discovering the mis-
take feioniousiy converted the money to
their own use. they were guilty But on
! appeal the court OF Appeals held that this
MIS- not the law ana granted new trial.
me correct rule In the case OF an over
payment, the court said was that in or
ger 10 constitute larceny in receiving the
oferpayment the defendants must have
known OF overpayment at the time II
was made ana must have then Intended
10 convert the money to their own use.
-
clan for abandoning case. and leaving
the patient without medical aid for an
hour. because when he attempted to oper-
ate the patient screamed. the Supreme
Court of California. In the case OF I.ath-
rope VS. Flood (ss Pac Rep. 1oo7), held
that a verdict of 1900 was not excessive.
at is the undoubted law" said the court.
that a physician NAV elect whether or
not he will give his services 20 a case, but
having accepted his employment and en-
tered upon the discharge of his duties he
Is hound tn devote IN the natient hts hest
s,,ir a,a .t.artio, ga =, aha,,,o, ~,
case only uhuer one OF Two conditions.
First, where the contract Is terminated
by the EMPLOYER. which termination NAV
be Immediate: second where IL Is terni-
mated by the physician which can only
be done after due notice and an
annie opportunify afforded TO secure the
presence of other medical attendance
effect that after several unsuccessful at
tempts to operate. during which the
paient screamed, the physician apruptiy
ton or suSeast;on ~ snvone The b,,s
band of the patient followed him into the
street, imploring him to return. and not
70 leaye MS WiIe IN tnat eoIoitloh. Iis
thst tbe .o-s.II scraa med and he vas not
usad to worrying for rvotne, thar screamed.
"
In Nf;sso,,r; a iaoislativa ACT raot,iring
. y -. -,
runway companies ourihs winter nion'hs
TO provide all eiectric cars WIN screens
a fine of s25 to s1Oo for every day tat an
electric car is operated in winter without
a screen. has been recently held valid and
constitutional by the Supreme Court of
the State, in the case of State VS.. Whlta-
ker go s. w Rep, 1889. 1t was contend
ed among other things b. the railway
COMPANIES that the fines imposed for fall
IRE to comply with the statute constituted
cruei anu nus ual ~ o,err,,i
no this contention ths court said: THE
,.b5ro.a that the act Imposes cruel and ur-
,Is1taI niiniehnnsnt is without merit EY-
srv stitnte imnosing a fine might, by the
same token he held cruel and unusual
nnnisbmant THE way to avoid the cruel
70 10 10 obey the Law and avoid these ac-
cyrmuiated fines
~ u, q ~ th,t .hare Y,s
~ ,,,,,,.,,,, The check offered
:. - 49,, ~ ona descrihad In the
,,~,,,,,so ,t., ,or,rar had Iitho-
- '-e,-as -. - I-,i.a5 stotss rsvanu,
80, IL ~, ,a,tar or,ittad tho stamn
g. ar,,oaI ~ Cn,,rt Of Cr,n,,naI AnDeaIs
held that there was no variance, as ii was
not necessary to set out in the instrument
or describe the revenue stamp, since II
formed no part of the instrument alleged
to have been forged. (Beer VS.. State. 50
s w Rep 1927
r,ar,factu of an ,,npatented article
y ii g.,
cannot ehJoii 80 ~,
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
in the case of Flagg Manufacturing Com
pany VS.. Holway (5s n. h, Rep, do') but
the rights of the first manufacturer may
be protected by requiring the second
manufacturer to mark clearly his goods
so that they Will not be mistaken Tor
those of the first. In the absence of
patent, sald the court, tne lreeuoin ol
ma ,, re ,o,i, ,y,fair co,one,i
- Al 10. 80 he ssLad is ,hat mo
,ti1ai shndI 10 taiten 90 far DC ars Con
.;s.t 9,,ith u rerso,,.s f,,pdamantai riSbt
sISeeit 49, ~ q II - ~, i. So
10 Ini ne anu scii "h'1 iie eiio''eS' " pie
vent "eSeP'iO"-
o. -. ......7-I : 1.,,i11;,,,s .,o..o;,,x
Ohe "ho eH'eIeu d oUiiuiiIS uhuei soiiie
sustained