The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-19
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

before the Supreme Court Of Tennessee
involved the determination Of what ar
ticles were necessary in an account be-
tween guardian and ward. The account in
cllded such items as oysters. sardiae<
crackers, canned peaches, candy. cigars,
and cheroots. hair dye. hair OIL bay rum.
hreastpins. kid gloves, slippers, tobacco.
two quarts OF chestnuts, cinnamon OIL
onions, and honey. The lower court de-
cided that onions and honey might be
allowed separately. but never in combina-
ton. Tssc account continued with chew
ing gum. cologne, rat poison. and two
watermelons in one day. The last item
was not allowed. on the ground that 1t was
an extravaganza. The ward died before he
reached the age OF twenty-one.
One who is requested by a servant OF a
corporation In charge OF its work or
service to assist him therein. and does
so with some purpose Of benefit in his
own behalf in addition to the purpose OF
so assisting, is held by the Supreme
Court of Ohio. in the case Of Cleveland
T. Il V. R. Company VS.. Marsh (5S N. E
Rep. SID. not to be volunteer, and
| is entitled. while SO assisting. to be pro-
tected against the negligence OF the
servants Of the company.
The fact that a husband gratuitousIy
devotes his time and skin to the man
agement OF his wife's land and to the
conduct of her farming operations does
not operate, holds the Supreme Court of
North Dakota. in the case of Olsen vs.
o'Connor tS4 N. w. Rep. 359). to vest in
him the title to the crops grown thereon.
as the existence Of the marriage relation
ba oh cf h. .rff.
to manage and control her own property,
which she had as single woman.
The use of storehouse in the city Of
New York for storing all kinds of cheese,
including Limburger, Swiss, Brie, and
Roquefort, was held by the Supreme
Court. Appellate Division. in the case Of
Smith VS.. Crawford (67 N Y Supp. 540).
not to constitute nuisance and an in
Junction was refused the owner of the
adjoining premises, who complained that
the cheese gave of an offensive and dis
agreeable odor. The Injunction was de-
MED on the ground that the evidence was
conflicting and that the finding of the
lower court on question OF fact should
not be disturbed. There was a dissent
ing opinion, however, by Justice Hatch.
in which ne held that the facts did es-
tablish nuisance. He said that it was
undisputed that the defendants stored
| about 1000 pounds of Limburger cheese
and about 10000 pounds of Swiss cheese,
| in addition to other kinds. THE odor
| from Limburger cheese" he observed,
when 1t is given fair opportunity to
| spread itself. Is overwhelming and, I'M
! less the olfactory sense be educated to
Its liking, or deadened to it's presence.
1t is about as offensive an odor as can
no nj
ings."
Where, on prosecution for burglary q
witness testifies that she knew the figure
OF the defendant, but not his face, and
that the man who entered the house was
small Of stature, without hat or coat, the
Supreme Court of North Carolina, in the
case Of State Vs. Costner (37 S. E. Rep,
$3.50, holds that it is not error to permit
such witness to testify that the figure of
the man resembled the defendant more
than anyone else she could think Of The
court said that the evidence of identifca-
tion was weak, but that it should go to
the jury.
Where a woman orally agreed with the
parents of boy adopted by her that in
consideration of such adoption she would
devise her property to him, consisting
mainly of real estate, the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin. in the case Of Martin VS..
Martins Estate (s4 N. w. Rep, 43s),
holds that such agreement, being oral, is
void under the statute of frauds This
decision is In conflict with many in other
States, which hold that an oral contract
similar to the one in the present case is
not void, but may be specifically enforced
on the ground of partial performance.
xxrlra rter ~ L. lto(t
for the death of child lawfully attend
4 ing one of It's public schools. when such
! death is caused by negligently allowing
I the sewer of the school building to be-
/ come clogged up, was recently decided in
/ the negative by the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin in the case of Folk VS.. City of
/ Milwaukee (S4 y. W. Rep, i20). The de-
I cision rests on the principle that the man
agement of a public school is merely
public service from which the city derives
no benefit in its corporate capacity and
| that in this class of cases the city is ex-
empt from liability. The court said that
| if a recovery we're possible on the facts
/ in this case, damages might be allowed
| for every sickness suffered by a scholar
i which could be traced to defective or in
! judicious heating, ventilation, or lack OF
/ ventilation of a school building. Such
a result would be intolerable," continued
! closing of schools by the exhaustion OF
| funds to discharge such Judgments" The
I question in this case had never before
\ been presented in Wisconsin, and in
reaching their decision the court followed
| the leading case of Hull vs. City of Bos-
ton (122 Mass, 314, decided by the SUI
preme Court of Massachusetts,.
| In an action to recover damages for
/ deceit practiced by the seller of promis-
J sorry note upon the purchaser thereof.
consisting of false representations as to
| the financial condition of the maker of
| the note, which are alleged to have in
/ ducad its purchase. the Supreme Court Of
| North Dakota, in the case of Chilson vs..
| Houston ga n. W. Rep, 354) holds that
/ the question whether the purchaser relied
| upon the false statements. and was in
| duced thereby to purchase the note, is
| question of fact to be determined by the
| jury, and that II is not necessary that the
! false statements and the acts Of reliance
| thereon shall concur in point Of time. 1t
| is sufficient If such false statements are
| the Inducements causing person to part
with his property, and the length of time
| Intervening between the time when the
| representations were made and the time
| when they were acted on is merely an evil
Dental fact to be considered by the jury
| in determining whether the false state
ments were relied upon.
| Where a member of mutual insurance
company has obligated himself to pay such
annual assessments as shall be made. not
| to exceed a specified sum each year. ard
| in anticipation of an annual assessment