The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-03-13
Supreme Court Renders Decision
Regarding the Taxing of Ger
tain Bank Stocks.
HOLDS Defendant LIABLE.
Case Decided Against st. Louis
Concern, Wherein Employe
Had Sued for Damages
for Injuries.
REPUBLIC

REPUBLIC SPECIAL.
Jefferson City. Mo-, March 12.-Division!
No. l and 2 Of the Supreme Court met to-
day and delivered opinions. In Division No
2 there was an important decision rendered
by Judge Burgess with respect to the as
sessment of bank stock. The case came VI
from Cole County. and the taxes assessed
were against the Merchants Bank of Jeffer
son City. The court holds that the assess
ment OF taxes due from an incorporated
bank must be made against the owners Of
the stock. and not against the corporation
In the court below defendant bank hat
onered evidence to show that 1t was banh
STOCK that was assessed, which upon OBJ
lection Of plaintiff, the Circuit Court exclud'
ed. and In this the Supreme Court holds
mai error was committed, for the evidence
was a good defense to the action.
IN the case OF Rose Lore VS.. American
manufacturing Company. from st. Louis
city. Judge CAN'T holds that the defendan,
was liable to the plaintiff for an injury
caused to her by the defendants negli.
gence in failing to provide safeguards to
gearing on a machine used In its jute fac
tory. The Safeguards are required by the act
VI tne Legislature of April 20, 1891. In con-
strung this act, Judge CAN'T says: ..The
purpose OF the Legislature was to preserve
nxe H'es and limbs of those whose daily
m =, > spent working on and about machln.
cry welding irresistible mechanical mower
ana was obviously intended to make plain
Luz uu'y Oh The master to his servants en-
pioseu around or about dangerous machine
cry ana to modify the common law doctrine
.nai IN absence of a statute the master was
A. oUuno 70 fence his dangerous machinery.
negligence" So.A =" s'a'u'e IS
In the case of Stern We. CITY Of ST. I,ouIs
doct r same Judge reiterates the %weli-known
eouna TO keep their streets and highwa We
zee from distractions, and reasonably safe
ffr ipd;,risa IN the usual modes, and are liable
plaintiff in this case sued the city for a ae
in1ury to his minor son caused Sy q de-
iIective sidewalk; The city was successful
the 10 ers cou urlai aw IN the Circuit 9 Court, but
peaIad and from this order the city ap-
new trial q su st, the Judgment awarding the
Sentenced to BE Hanred.
Juoge Sherwood decided three criminal
Sasss. Evans was sentenced to
nang on the 18th day of April. 1901, for the
man, marae at Of Bo M1liiam II He mn1 q police;
while trying to arrest Evans for bursIarV.
tIoya Holloway was sentenced to the peni-
s stn, . nse for life for the murder Of a negro
December. 1899. Ed Palmer was Sentenced
70 me penitentiary for ten years for the
SMfllhs sn OF Thongs q ,saa Gannaway at Fulton.
Judge Valiant delivered two opinions in
%hiSn the laws respecting the adoption of
children en- and the rights Of adopted children
Steele Size e01 from knoI In rd the case Of Steele VS.:
10 the right of inheritance an adopted child
stanas on an equal footing with q real
On fniia' Dnt his expectations may be defeated
aday, from Cass County. the same Judge
nolds that q parol or oral contract of adop-
o 6io1 ms Is good, and d. is not with the inhibitions
questions growing out Of the institution
ct human slavery are not often before
e eae Supreme re- re- Court nowadays, but an ex-
Of Lee vs.. Lee, decided BY Judge VaIli AM.
It was a partition suit between negroes. and
II the ,r Gpin = holds that the issue Of slave
have the right to inherit.
In the case of Hafner ct al, VS.. the City
OF OF St. Louis. the eity's right to a portion
q wharf deed of 1853 from Mrs. Galloway. is
upheld and sustained. This deed has been
before the Supreme Court many times, and
declared valid. 1t seems that Mrs. Gallo
way had sold the land to the CITY while
holding only the equitable title to it. while
t ms legal wa. f a was ou asnnqsg The legal
she transferred 1t to other parties, under |
whom the plaintiffs in these sections against
t nrem city So have bo clsim red. title s But the Su-
way parted with the equitable title to the
city, and afterwards reacquired the legal
title that such legal title was merged in
he equitable estate which was In the city
at the time.
Proceedings in Detail.
Brace p j.: Stark vs. Publishers: George
1 Tanns 1,1 vs.. Missouri aSi'f Psel Ss' R aiH1FsS; c ssnI p
Robinson. j.: Francisco. admir-. VS.. wingheld:
se5ssS and Iemsnd.d witt. dires.ion IS DeHa
,e Hal1'hni' With vi; t ai9set Se; Hosss tssls vs. rey ssssis: ' 1s1
ssr,ed and demanded with directions. Plaster ".
'ections: Sells VS.. Tootle:. affirmed. Lee VS..
1ss; c e5nn%ss: s TeSersed S and 4m nemsnae s0G ait a0p a.
.,ections: National Bank Of Commerce vs.: Rip
ey & Bronson: reversed and remanded with d.
MisssIlsneo: PROCEEDINGS; Grim vs. Grim;
Grim VS.. Grim: motion to transfer to court in
FiecIenstein VS.. Waters; motion for rshearins
Smiley vs.. St LOUIS and, Hannibal. Railway
Humphreys VS.. Frame; motion for leave to Gle
sssi o Anderson Ssisf '1 "a. aTTk nIos re By TssY0n Sa'froaa
motion to vacate supersedeas by re-
1929. Bealey vs.; Smith; motion to modify juds-
s5a. II, apsh 4 s V; P1ayis: continued to October
1887. Greene vs.. Henderson,: reply. to defend
, as.s s 81 somm Hs l%Ras,pti n p BStIsaGn for mos apD0' 1sr
ecurity for costs by defendant.
s s5.s; s If dim RinmP cS Of record vs. ., w piaini,a sun Fl
rror and application for eertiorari.
ssse; aEfS' voluntary appearance peara CO Executor eeseR As en-.
cred: cause revived BY consent: continued to oc-
On motion of Sam 3. Jeffries. - Bishop is
ssSs. Becht VS.. secht: order on clerk to send up .
SIS. Livingston VS.. Wabash Railway Company;
ndiourne % to of March t s. assoi i'0'' on stipulation
Opinions by Division No. 2.
BY s%heswecd; I. ,i III State vs. Holloway: at.
nd cause Tsmanded On ,hs verdict and sentence.
SO! ss,e ys. sI pslms5; 81. afh fga anr st1 2, ~, rs. Evans;
By, Burssss; J.: Morley V; Hieks; affirmed.
ses MfI' Ss. Melnsy1s:: I Isysr:sd s sRf d if@aasss:
81 o as; Salisbury T.! Wai 1sxsrs vs! and %,y Ismq Mss5,oc-
,rirg Company; reversed and remsnded. Wolfe .
i ssgTsT Hsr Lodge q. A naasss; 9 Man hsatss sf H som:
my; affirmed. osle VS.. st. Louis; affirmed.
usehenIhserE vs.. Southern Electric Railway com- /,
Motions. etc: Edwards Brokerage Company !
VS.. Westminster College; rehearins de- I
s st.at.e VS. IS. Holland siI q 's TehealiSs ae denied. :
State VS.. Elliott; motion to prosecute appeal as :
s,., person rs CABIN BY ba1 !s e sn.,
easier VS.. Gray; motion to retax costs filed By !
easier VS.. Chase; motion to tax costs filed by {
HcYey We. Carr: motion to tax costs filed by !
Int ! It Hos Sand Company ". St; Louis Terminal c
q. Y: Riley; cause revived in name o, adj
q motion 10 Of o., Morton Jou.dan. Eyerard N. 4
as'Haaa q s to asscs IS s. 6 % is51. of this bar. i,