The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-04-22
NOTES OF LEGAL OPINIONS.

The domicil of a child after divorce, on
which the custody has been given to the
50 l.. r. A. 663, to follow the domicil of the
mother.
A statute requiring labels to be affixed
on all baking powders, showing the In
gradients. is held, in State VS.. Sherod
5MinnD, 80 l.. r. A, geo, to be a valid ex-
ercise of the police power.
A rule of a street-railway company re-
quiring all colored persons to occupy front
seats and white passengers the back seats
Is held, in Bowie VS.. Birmingham X. and h.
Co. (Ala.). 80 l.. r. A. 632, to be a reason
able regulation.
To publish of a merchant that he has
given a mortgage upon his stock of goods.
though the same does not appear of record,
is held, in Dun VS.. Weintraub (Ga.), so i.
r. A. $40. not TO be an actionable publica-
ton, without allegation of special damages.
A private room in a hotel rented by the
occupant is held, in Greenville VS.. Kemmis
Is. C), so l. r. A. TBS, to be his place or
his house" within the meaning of an or
dinance making it unlawful to permit gam
ing in any persons inclosure, place or
house.
The execution of an appeal bond by a
brewing company for the benefit of one Of
its customers. although it may give the
company some incidental advantage, Is
held. in Best Brewing Company VS.. klas-
sen QlI.), so L. r. a, 765. to be ultra wires
and void because not within the express or
implied powers of the corporation.
The loss sustained by a woman on ac-
count of breaking her engagement to mar
ry, at the solicitation of another man. and
on his promise TO marry her, is held, in
Hahn VS.. Bettingen CMinn.), % l.. *. a.
$50, not to be a proper element OF damages
in an action against him for breach of
promise, since she cannot take advantage
of her W wrong.
The decision of a dispute as to which of
two persons is the regular party nominee
for Congress-, when made by the governing
authority Of the party within the State.
such as a state central committee. under
authority conferred upon IL by the state
convention, Is held. In Moody VS.. Trimble
(Ky.). so l.. R. A. $40. TO be conclusive upon
the courts.
Conditions Endorsed on an employees
pass. by which he assumes the risks from
held. in Whitney VS.. New York. n. II. & II.
II. Co. &C. c. \. 1st CD, so J.. r. A, els, to
be Invalid on grounds OF public policy,
where he is travelling for his own con-
venience, not going to or from his work.
and the pass is one OF the consideration
of .ls employment.
A general city ordinance requiring motor
men and conductors of street cars TO keep a
vigilant watch for all persons on foot and
stop the car on the first appearance of dan
ger is held, in Holwerson vs.. ST. Louis a s..
r. Co. (Mo.), 80 l.. r. A, $50, not to affect
the civil liability of the street-rilway COM
pany to persons injured by it's failure to
comply with the ordinance, where this was
not made a part OF the railway franchise
and the company had never agreed TO be
bound by II.
An exclusive privilege given by a railroad
company 10 one baggage transfer company
for entering a railroad depot 10 solicit bust
ness. without any interference with the
right of q rival company to receive and de-
liver baggage at the station. is upheld in
Norfolk a w. Ry. Co. VS.. Old Dominion
Baggage Transfer Co. Na). 90 l.. r. A
722. under a statute adopted from the Eng
lish railway and canal traffic act OF 1854.
prohibiting unreasonable or undue prefer
ences or advantages by carriers, since this
provision Is held 10 apply only TO prefer
ences in respect TO their service as common
CarriarS