The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-16
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

LEuhb DEOlOlOND.
person who leaves an illegal corpora
ton Is to be treated as "reformer,'
under a recent decision OF the Supreme
Court of Minnesota in the case of Ertz
vs. Produce Exchange Company (s4 n. w.
Rep. 7i3). which holds that dealer in
produce who was member of an associa-
tion organized TO restrain trade and con-
troll the market. and who participated in
the adoption OF its constitution and by
laws. is not prevented from maintaining
an action against such association and its
members for damages caused by a boy
| Getting of his business by the association
after he was suspended for violation OF its
bylaws. The plaintiff alleges that the
association and its members have COM
bined and conspired to ruin his business
by not selling to or buying from him any
merchandise OF produce, and have iniiu-
enced others not to have dealings with
him. The association contends that the
plaintiff cannot recover because he is in
pari delieto by reason OF having been
member of the Illegal association at the
time the bylaws were adopted. But the
court held that II does not follow that
because the plaintiff was at one time
member of the illegal combination with
intent to injure in this same manner de-
faulting members, after ceasing to be a
member ne must suffer without redress
at the hands OF his former co-conspira-
tors. Under the conditions disclosed the
law presumes good faith on the part of
the plaintiff, and will treat him as a re-
former and entitled to all the benefits of
the reformation. The application OF the
principle invoked by respondent would
place a burden upon reformation and a
premium upon wrongdoing."
In a contempt proceeding against the
city board of education of Lead S. D., for
an alleged violation of writ of manda-
mus ordering the board to admit a pupil
whom it had suspended for failure to com
ply with its order requiring vaccination,
the Supreme Court held that the board was
not guilty of contempt The mandamus
to the board was issued because there was
no smallpox in the city at the time, and
the board complied with the writ and adj
mitted the pupil. Subsequently smallpox
became prevalent and the board again
suspended the pupil until he should pre-
sent proof Of vaccination. For this sec
ond suspension the board was cited to APP
pear for contempt, but the court held that
its action was justified in view OF the
L
regulation excluding temporarily such pu-
pills as declined TO be vaccinated was held
by the court to be within the general
power of the school board to control and
manage the public schools. (Gloyer VS.
Board of Education, 81 n. W. Rep, 1922
woman may fill the office of notary
public in Kentucky, under a recent deci-
sion of the Court of Appeals in the case
of Harbour-Pitt Shoe Co. VS.. Dixon t60
S. w. Rep, 1861. The court cited as
precedent the Illinois case of Sehuchardt
VS.. People (99 ILL.,, 50D. which holds that
a woman may be appointed a master in
chancery in Illinois.
Where on trial for murder the prose-
cution eontended that the defendant con-
cealed himself in growth of mesquite
trees and shot the deceased and the de-
PENDANT, in order TO. rebut this theory, Of
fered to show by experiments that had
been made that the country surrounding
the scene of the homicide did not furnish
a place of eoncealment by trees or bushes. |
the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas !
holds thai these experiments were proper
and should have been admitted and that it
was error in the trial court TO exclude
them. (Schauer VS.. State. 60 S. w. Rep,
249l
In trial for murder In Louisiana the
counsel for the defendant asked the trial
court TO instruct the jury that the fouler
the crime is the clearer and the palmer
ought to be the proof to convict; that the
more fragrant the crime is the more clear |
ly ard satisfactorily ii should be made to
appear 10 the jury; that the greater the |
crime the stronger is the proof required |
for conviction" The trial court refused |
this instruction. and On appeal the Su-
prsme Court sustained the ruling on the !
ground that there is no law or precedent /
which requires or sanctions the PROPOSE
ton advanced or the distinctions in crimi-
nology sought TO be made Estate VS..
Johnson. 90 Sc. Rep, 24)
The fact that juror in a murder trial
drank quantity of whisky just before be
ing called and accepted as a juror was
assigned as error on appeal before the
Supreme Court of South Dakota in the
case of State VS.. Andre ga n. W. Rep,
1881 The court held that as there was
nothing TO indicate that he became in
toxicated or that he drank anything after !
beiub accepted the verdict should not be
set aside Had some party in interest
provided the whisky" said the court, or
the drinking occurred during the prog
ress of the trial or after the case was |
submitted to the jury for final determine
ton. the question whether the juror was
thereby to any extent rendered incapable
of impartially exercising cool. sober, and
deliberate judgment would be one of al
most tremendous Importance not only TO
US, but to the accused, sentenced to life
long Imprisonment"
physician who makes a post-mortem
under the direction of the
coroner cannot collect fee for his SER
vices from both the administrator and the
holds the Supreme Court of Ala
bama in Mattel VS.. Montgomery County J
40 So Rep.,) and if he is paid by the
the county is not liable for
his services.
A recent suit before a justice Of the
peace at New London, Wis. involved
the question of ownership between two
hunters of bear meat One OF the hunters
L..