The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-05-04
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

Can an action for libel be maintained
by a correspondent In a divorce pro
ceeding for alleged libeIous allegations
In otl for divorce2 This question was
recently decided by the Supreme Court
OF Missouri. I'm the case OF Jones VS..
hro"niee tol 5. w. Rep, 1857. and 1t was
hsid that such an action did not lie. be-
cause allegations made in the due coirs.
OF legal proceedings in a court Of com
petent jurisdiction are absolutely privi-
, legged The court said that the ev idenca
In this case tended strongly to show that
the allegations were false and that the CO.
respondent in question was innocent. but
that, however grievous It may appear 20
her. she has no remedy for the asper-
sion cast upon her according 20 the law. %
At common law contract which. upon
its face. appears to be legitimate cannot
be declared void as a wagering contract
upon proof that one of the parties thereto
| knew and meant IL TO be such. holds the
Supreme Court of Missouri. in the case OF
A. G. Edwards Brokerage Company -
Stevenson (6i 5. w. Rep. 610; and In a
contract for the purchase Of stocks. in
order that il shall become void as
gambling contract. 1t is necessary that
! both parties knew nd understood that
they We're purchased upon margins. or
upon the rise and fall Of the stocks in
the market.
The ordinance of the city OF New Or
leans in prohibiting private markets with
in 300 feet OF the public markets violates
none OF the provisions Of the State or Fed
eral Constitution. holds the Supreme Court
of Louisiana, in the case OF City OF New
| Orleans vs.. Vidalat 90 So Rep, 533l;
and the court further held that 1t is with
! in the police power and legislative discre-
ton of the city to require certain food
| commodities to be sold only in the public
| markets; and the fact that the ordinance
| IN question may have the effect Of cOm-
/ peillng dealers in such commodities to go
| into the public markets, or else TO go out
| OF business. does not affect the validity Of
| the ordinance.
On the appeal from conviction OF muir
| der in Mississippi. in the case OF Onidas
vs.. State (29 So. Rep. 525). it was contend
ed by the defendant that the trial court
lost the control of the case by suspend
ing the trial for thirty minutes while il
considered another matter. But the SUI
preme Court held that this new and tech
meal objection was without merit. as IL
was not shown that the defendant was in
any way pretudiced by the action Of the
court. The court said that If the trial OF
case on hearing should be suspended
by the Intervention Of other matters TO
such an extent as to lessen It's Importance
of impairing the due and orderly consid-
Grafton OF 1t by them, 50 thereby TO
work an injustice to the accused. then
such action would call for appropriate re-
lief.
Under the laws of Florida an officer
cannot lawfully arrest a person without
warrant for the bare crime OF carrying
concealed weapons. whether he knows it
of his own knowledge or IS informed OF
hg-0 M ha=e nj q.
out of his presence, holds the Supreme
Court of that State. in the case of Rob
ertson VS.. State 90 So. Rep. 535). unless
the carrying Of the weapon is done in
such manner or under such circumstances
as, IN the presence Of the officer. to Gre
ate, threaten, or amount to a breach OF
the peace; and even in the latter case
the arrest would be authorized. not from
the bare fact of carrying concealed weap-
ons, but because OF the threatened or
actual breach of the peace accnr1pa n1-fncr
IT,. me court further held that the car
rylng or arms IN a quiet. peaceabie and
ordinary manner. but concealed on or
about the person, is not either a breach
OF the peace OF nahum in Sc Neither
does 1t of Itself tend to a breach Of the
peace, out Il becomes nistiemeanor only
because II Is prohibited by statute The
statute does not declare il 10 be a breach
or the peace, nor does the statute au-
thorize an arrest without warrant for its
fnfractiOn.
Under the provisions of the bankruptcy
act that the claims of creditors who
have received preferences shall not be al
lowed unless such creditors shall surren-
der their preferences, Judge Hook. of the
United states District Court OF Kansas.
in re Seeker O06 Fed Rep, $50. holds
that creditor who has received a partial
payment while the debtor was insolvent.
and within four months before the latter
became bankrupt, must surrender such
payment as a preference before he can
prove the balance of his claim nOtwith-
standing the fact that he received II in
the ordinary course OF business and with
out knowledge or reasonable cause to be-
lieve the debtor was iusoivent, or d pref
erence intended.
Where a person deposits money with a
broker to cover margins on the purchase
of grain or options on the Chicago Board
OF Trade. and the transactions are in fact
fictitious. the broker having no connec-
ton with the Board of Trade. the SUI
preme Court of Oregon. in the case Of
MeiIot VS.. Downing ga Pac. Rep. 393),
holds that the broker has no lien upon
the money deposited with him to cover
margins for advancements made or liza
biiities incurred on account of such fic-
titious transactions, and the party is en-
titled to recover it as for money had and
received.
a newsdealer in New York brought suit
against the American News Company and
others on the ground that they had con
to discontinue his supply of
papers unless he desisted from distribute
ing with the newspapers circulars caIcu-
lated to make him competitor with the
in the business of advertis-
ing. and that if his supply of papers
should be cut OFF his business would be-
ruined. Judge Gildersleeve, of the Su-
preme Court, before whom the case was
heard, held that, on the facts. the news
dealer did not have a cause of action:
that the publishers had a right to refuse
to sell him papers. though il might re-
suit m a loss to him. There Is no Mace
in any system of Jurisprudence VET de-
vised, said Judge Gildersleeve, FOR the
principle that man may be cOmDeUed
TO sell his goods or his labor TO one with
whom he does not wish 10 deal. merely
because his refusal to do so may cause
loss to him who wants them; and what
any publisher could lawfully do indi-
all the publishers may lawfully
combine to do collins VS. American
News Company. SO n. Y. Supp. 639l
Words charging one in a business or
profession with ignorance or want OF
skill in a particular transaction are not
Hbelous per Sc, holds the Court
IF Appeals OF Kentucky in the case Of
Nanire vs. Hubbardd Isl S. w Rep. 1867;
IND where newspaper published an arti-
lie in regard to whether smallpox was in
4 town, and said the negroes who were
;aid to have the smallpox had no break
h.a Of