The times., 1901-03-09
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


subsequently takes place. Of a portion OF
his land 10 his sons by former marriage.
without consideration other than love and
affection. and without the knowledge or
consent of his contemplated wife. is held
BY the Supreme Court Of Ohio, in the cgs Sc
of Ward vs. Ward (53 y. F. Rep. 10SD, TO
be a fraud on her marital rights, and she.
at his death. is entitled to her dover
therein. The reason for the decision is
that during the betrothal the parties stand
in go close and confidential relationship
as to give rise TO duty to exercise the
utmost good faith. The intended wife has
the same interest as the husband in the
family establishment and in all that con-
Germs it's future support and maintenance.
Such an undisclosed conveyance is there
fore. inconsistent with the good faith and
honesty which the relations of the parties
demand.
In an action for damages for false i'm
prisonment and malicious prosecution.
brought in Richmond, Va. against rail-
road company. where the evidence showed
that the company employed a detective
agency to investigate certain iarcenies
made from its cars, and to find out the
cuiprit. and that the agency arrested and
imprisoned a man who was afterward ao-
quilted 1t was held that the detective
agency was not the agent of the railroad
company. and that. therefore, the COM
pany was not liable.
A wife, on leaving her home for alleged
misconduct on the part of her husband,
cannot take from the homestead house
hold goods without his consent, holds the
Supreme Court of Michigan in the case Of
Johnson VS.. Johnson q Det. l. N, 6sS).
An agreement or contract entered into
by a municipality with street railway
company by ordinance whereby the COM
pany was granted a special rate for city
taxation was held to be valid by the Su-
preme Court Of Michigan In the case Of
Detroit Street Railway Company VS.. Com
mon Council q Det. l.. N, CD, and 1t
was further held that a contract granting
immunity from taxation TO street rall-
way company passes with an assignment
of the property of the company.
The denial of a writ OF habeas corpus by
the Federal courts of one circuit Is held
by the United States Circuit Court. in the
case of Carter VS.. McClaughry Q05 Fed
Rep, 61f not to render the questions de-
terrnined res judicata, so as to preclude
their re-examinatiOn by the courts or an
other circuit in subsequent habeas corpus
petitioner.
Notes signed by both members of
partnership. which do not purport TO be
obligations Of the firm, although given by
the partners for money borrowed and
put into the firm as capital, are held by
Judge Purnell OF the United States Dis
trict Court North Carolina. in the case or
Strause VS.. Hooper QO5 Fed. Rep, oSJl,
not provable against the estate OF the
partnership in bankruptcy.
Creditors of an infant In Illinois whose
debts the infant is entitled to repudiate
at majority cannot have him adjudged an
involuntary bankrupt, since they are not
creditors in the sense of the Bankruptcy
act of 1895 holds Judge KO1lsaat, OF the
United States District Court in re Eide
miller Q05 Fed. Rep, 5s5).
Where a wife bought real estate with
the proceeds of a store originally acquir-
ed by gift from her husbands mother,
taking title to the land in her own name,
the Supreme Court OF Iowa, in the case
of Marshall Field & Co. VS.. MeFariane
(S4 N w Rep. 1G30), holds that a ludg-
meut creditor of the husband could not
subject the land 10 the payment OF his
debt.
A verdict for $500 damages recovered by
a minor son from a saloon keeper for IN
Jury TO his means Of support in conse-
quenCe OF the habitual intoxica tion Of his
father caused by the Illegal sales of in
toxicating liquors TO him by the saloon
keeper. Was affirmed by the Supreme
Court of Iowa in the case of Shull vs.
Arie (S4 n. ". Rep, fO3D.
In an action against an administrator
by physician to recover for professional
services rendered during the last Illness
of a person. the Court of Civil Appeals of
Texas go s. w. Rep. 573) holds that the
physician could not testify that be treat
ed and prescribed for deeedent, since this
was a transaction with the deceased
within the meaning of the statute which
provides that in actions against admin
istrators neither party shall testify as
10 any transactions with the deceased
unless called by the opposite party.
The fact that a judge before whom a
suit is brought is on intimate terms of
friendship with the plaintiff and the plain
tiffs father would not disqualify the
judge from trying the case. holds the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the
case of Sparks VS.. Colson go S. w. Rep,
$40 The court said that TO hGlt that such
a state of fact would disqualify the judge
from acting in a suit wherein some of
these parties were remotely or directly
interested would be ridiculous.
In an action for personal injuries the
defendant has no right TO demand that
the court examine the plaintiff TO deter
mine dispute between opposing doctors.
holds the New York Supreme Court Ap-
pelIate Division, in the case Of French vs..
Brooklyn Heights r. Co. (6s n. 7. Supp,
$50.
drayman who delivered a barrel of
whisky to the wrong person was held By
the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in
J the case of Som VS.. Smith (6S n. Y. Supp.
| 21D. to be liable for the value OF same.
since every bailee is bound at his peril
/ to know that the person to whom he
delivsrs property Is the proper person.
/ In directing the jury as to the manner
of determining the credibility of wit
nesses. the Appellate Court OF Indiana, in
! the case of Wabash Railroad Company
| VS.. Biddle 30 N f. Rep. 2S5)). holds that
/ II is error to tell the jury that they
/ should" consider certain facts, instead
| Of instructiuG them that they might
[ consider these facts
Where statements made about q person
are ambiguous and may impute the crime
/ Of arson. the Court of Appeals of New
York. in the case of Warner VS. Southall
I 80 N. E. Rep. 269). holds that 1t is for the
( iIrv TO say whether they were so in
I tended and understood, and IL is error for
I the court 10 hold as matter OF law that
/ they are not aCtiouable.
An abutting property owner who claims
! damages to his property by the operation