The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1901-08-10
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

A story entitled "A Life for Lfe..'
bearing close resemblance to the true
narrative OF n murder In Michigan. was
found in box OF silverware In the pos
session of man suspected OF burglary.
and with the story as a ciew he was tried
and convicted OF the murder 4, was
contended by counsel for the Defendant
that the mere fact that there was a sim
ilarity between the story and the real
murder was not sufficient to render the
story admissible in evidence on the trial
Tor murder. But on appeal the Supreme
Court held that whether or not the story
showed knowledge on the part OF the de-
PENDANT of the murder was a question to
De determined by the jury. and should be
admitted. The Judgment of conviction
was affirm ed. People VS.. Higgins. IS ~
W. Rep, SID
"A resident of Massachusetts was mar
rted to a resident of New York. and re-
moved to that State. where she resided for
some years, after which she returned to
Massachusetts and re,yained her residence
thcre, and obtained a divorce on the
ground of cruelty. Her husband was
served IN New York. but did not appear
IN the action. and subsequently remarked
IN Pennsylvanie. but continued to live in
New York until his death
On these facts the New York Supreme
Spurt, appellate division. held that the
massachusetts, decree was not binding ON
the plaintiff in New York. and hence did
not bar her right to dover in the bus-
oand lands IN New York (Starbuck VS.
Starbuck. "A y. Y. Supp. le4)
The expression Of an unfavorabIe opin-
ION OF the goods Of its competitor by
rival concern in letters or circulars is not
a ground for libel, holds Judge Dallas. Of
the United States Circuit Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
IN the case of Nonpareil Cork Man.
80 u as-t.r .
tison Co. uOS Fed. Rep. 72I), as such ex
pressions are not uncommon among riyaIs
IN trade: and their correctness in each in
stance is for determination by those
whose custom Is sought. and not by the
the courts.
An Insurance company cannot legally
refuse to pay an agent his commissions
solely on the ground that if had decided
to change its rate. and to charge higher
one, after he had performed the services
required OF him in procuring the insur-
ance, according to the United States Cir
cuft Court of Appeals in the case of Cur
rier VS. Mutual Reserve Fund Life AS
ISOLATION Q0S Fed. Rep. 80 In this case
the agent procured applications for fr,siIr
ancs in accordance with his instruction.
and with the. rules and regulations of the
company. and forwarded them to the
nome office of the defendant for its ae-
ton upon them. The applications were in
due form. and it Is to be presumed that
the applicants were insurable risks and
that the risks were satisfactory to the
company No objection to them was
pointed out, and the presumption is that
none existed. The only objection made TO
delivering the policies was that the rate
of premium on them was too low
The court held that on these facts the
ordinary rule in regard to agents APP
plied-that is, that while an agent is not
usually entitled to his commissions until
the transaction is complete. yet. IL he
mas faithfully performed his part of the
transaction. and from no fault of his own.
but by the refusal of the principal to
complete the contract, 1t is not consum-
mated, the agent will be entitled to his
Statues cut, carved. and wrought by
hand from a solid block of marble.s by a
person who is graduate of a recognized
school of art, are ''statusry. the work of
A professional sculptor" within the terms.
of paragraph 454 of the tariff act of 1897,
holds Judge Coke. of the Circuit Court,
Southern district, New York. in the case
IF Townsend VS.. United States Q08 Fed.
Rep. SOD, and entitled to entry as such,
without regard to the purpose for-which-.
hey are to be used, tie degree of artistic
merit they possess. or the fact that they
are copied from the work of other scuIp-
ors.
The granting of patent is prima facfe
evidence of the utility of the invention.
holds the Circuit Court of Appeals in the
;ase of Crown Cork and Seal Company
IS. Aluminium. etc. Co. Q0S Fed. Rep.
~. and to sustain the defence of want
# utility in a suit for Infringement. the
defendant must show. either that 1t is
impossible for the device
# the patent to operate, or demonstrate
y clear proof that person skilled in the
.rt has endeayored in good faith to make
he invention work. and has been unable
o do so; and the court further held that
n abandonment of an invention to the
ublic which will defeat a subsequent pat
mt therefor is not established by evil
ence that the inventor temporarily aban-
oned experiments which had to that time
roved unsuccessful. where he subse-
uently resumed them, successfully per-
mt therefor before any adverse rights ac-
rued.
A fair association which maintained a
ace track on its fair grounds negiigently
lade an opening in the fence surrounding
he track. and through this opening
orse ran from the track among the peo-
lie assembled on the main part of the
air ground, injuring one o. the specta-
ors The court appellate Court of In
lanai held the fair association liable for
he injury on the ground that the cause
( the injury was the failure to enclose
roperIy the track. t.. .ndeler VS. Rush
,ounty Fair Association. 90 N. E. Rep,
40
Where a person claims status of citi-
enship under the naturalization laws OF
he United States Judge Boardman, of
he United States District Court of
louisiana. in the case of Simone QS Fed.
sep., 9i2). holds that the courts have 1ur-
,diction to determine such claim, not
outstanding that ii may have been ad-
ersely determined by the immigration
Ulcers
The renewal by new note of usurious
ote, but excluding all the usury. is held
y the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine In
he case of vermule VS.. Vermule tf9 Att:
.ep 60S), to render the new note valid
nd binding on the maker. as the parties
aemselves have done what a court or
guilty would require them to do.
A structure connecting two buildings on
,posite sides of street. built so far
Dove the street as not to interfere with
affic thereon, is held by the Court Of
Dpeals OF Maryland. in the case of Town
md vs.. Epstein (is Att. Rep. S2s), to be
Iisance as to adjacent property owners,
hose light 1t obstructs.
Where a person is INDUCED to support
lother during several years by her
auduleut pretence that she was desti-
tie. when In fact she had a considerable
tate in bank. the Court of Errors and
ppeals of New Jersey, in the case or
lids that he is entitled to be recon-
nsed out of the estate for the money
ID property SO furnished to her.
\ Judgment obtained against an insol-
mt within four months of filing pc
ion on which he Is adiudged a bankrupt
void. holds the Appellate Court of In
ma. in the case of SEVERN VS.. Robin