The Washington times., 1901-07-06
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

Sickness of the defendants counsel
| caused by drunken spree Is not ground
for continuance in a trial for murder in
Texas. holds the Court of Criminal Ap-
| peals, Coleman VS.. State (6S S. w. Rep,
| S2z). Application for continuance was
made by defendant on the ground that
| his leading counsel was absent on account
| of sickness. The eontesting affidavit of
! ti1e District Attorney showed that the
Sickness OF counsel was voluntarily pro-
duced by reason of the use of intoxicating
4 nquor. and the trial courts explanation
/ III the record also indicates that the
sickness OF counsel was produced by the
| voluntary use OF intoxicating liquors" 1t
| further appeared that the defendant had
other able counsel to defend him. so the
| continuance was refused, and this ruling
/ was sustained.
| While train was being held up in
| Texas the fireman was shot and killed,
j probably by the train crew and others
who We're resisting the robbers. One OF
! the robbers was captured and tried for
the killing of the fireman. The theory of
: the prosecution was that the robbers
I forced the fireman to so in front OF them
1 TO the express car, which they intended to
| rob and thus placed him in danger of be-
! ing shot from those who might would
i defend the train and that therefore they
/ We're guilty in law of his murder.
The defence was that the fireman went
\ TO the express car OF his own volition
Z responsible for placing him in the dan
! gerous position which he occupied, and
/ by reason of which he was killed. The
I court charged the jury, in substance that
/ if the robbers forced the fireman to go
! in front Of them to the express car, be-
I lieVtng his life was in danger or might be
/ in danger. and he was shot either by
! them or by some one defending the train,
1 they would be guilty of his murder; but
that If the Jury believed that the fireman
was not compelled by the robbers TO go
there vol
unfairly, and was killed by those resist
ing the robbers, that the robbers were
not guilty. The jury found the robbers
guilty of murder, and on appeal the Court
Of Criminal Appeals sustained the YER
dict. holding that the jurys were correctly
instructed as TO the law. (Faylor VS..
State, 63 S. w. Rep. SSO9
The assignment by a public officer of
salary TO be earned in future is void as
against public policy. according to the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky in the case
OF Holt VS. Thurman (e3 S. W. Rep, zS0).
In its opinion the court said: while the
compensation already earned by a public
officer may be yalidly assigned by him. 1t
Is settled by clear preponderance OF au-
thority that an assignment of future
compensation not yet earned, whether
payable by salary or fees. is opposed to
public policy and void. Salaries. II IS
said in one case are by law payable after
work is performed and not before. and
while this remains the law 1t must be
presumed to be a wise regulation and |
necessary, in the view of the lawmakers, |
TO the efficiency of the public service. The !
contrary rule would permit the public
service to be undermined by the assign |
ment to strangers of all the funds appro-
priated TO salaries"
Where a telegraph company receives
compensation in excess of the usual rate
within free delivery limits. and guar |
to secure the delivery of an important |
message, with knowledge that one of the !
parties to whom it is addressed does not |
reside within free delivery limits, the /
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, in the |
case of The Western Union Telegraph |
Company VS.. Hendricks (63 S. w. Rep, !
3tD, holds that the company is not re- /
heved from liability for it's failure to de- /
liver the message BY the fact that the I
parties to whom 1t is addressed are tenn
porarily in another city, but the company /
is required to use reasonable efforts to !
locate them and to deliver the message.
Where the parties to contract for the I
use of a patent right for d certain time I
at a given annual rate. as a license fee, /
agree that, if the Hcensee continues to /
use it after the expiration OF the term /
without obtaining a license therefor, the /
Iicensee shall pay double the former rate /
for each year in which it is used the +
ing Company VS.. Grafton Stone Company, (
60 y. L. Rep, 565) holds that the agree
ment is not unlawful or against public
policy, but IN the nature OF Iiquidated /
damages and may be recovered as such 1
on breach Of the agreement
woman brought an action against a
railroad for damages alleged to have
been sustained by her in consequence of
having been carried beyond her destina-
tion and landed by night near given
town, where she, with no companion ex-
cept her child, was compelled to walk
some distance in order to secure shelter
and protection. She offered evidence that
Ii was not the custom for women to walk
about at that time of night without an
escort in that town, and that il would be
rather imprudent for a woman to walk
a given distance In that place In the
dark with no companion except a little
child. The trial judge admitted the eyi-
dence, but on appeal the Supreme Court
dorsey VS.. Central of Georgia Railway
Company, IS 5. Z. Rep, S5S) held that the
evidence was inadmissible and reversed
a judgment in favor of the woman
Where a contract of employment has
been fairly made between an attorney
and one thereby becoming his client, and
before any services are rendered by the
attorney he is discharged by the client,
without cause, from further connection
with the matter, the Court OF Appeals of
kentucky lhenFy VS. vance. bo ,. w. I
Rep, 273) holds that the remedy of the
is an action on quantum meruit
for services already rendered, and that
the measure of damages in such case
would necessarily depend upon the cir
cumstances
The statutes Of Kentucky prohibiting
common carrier from charging more for
short haul than for a long haul. where
the shorter distance is included in the
longer distance. are not in conflict with
the Constitution of the United States or
any laws of Congress. according to the
Court of Appeals Of Kentucky t65 5. W.
Rep. 4i0 The court held that rail-
road company may be indicted for charg-
ing more for short haul than for long
haul.
Articles which are perishable in their
nature, such as fruit, etc. are not baggage
when placed by a passenger in his trunk.
to be transported on railroad. according