The Washington times., 1901-07-20
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


on his gay to discharge a duty which
he has been ordered to perform. in pass
| ing along one OF the open, public thor
ouFhfares OF the mill. stops to exchange
| remark with a fellow employe concern
| ing the operation of the machinery of the
| mill. and Is struck and injured by a belt
| which breaks at the moment, the Su-
| preme Court OF Louisiana Moor vs.. Pick
eriug Lumber Company. g So Rep, 300,
holds that he will not be held guilty of
such contributory negligence as will pre-
clude his recovery OF damages because
he happened 10 stop in front of the pulley
which carried the belt that injured him.
| IL the place too unsafe to be used
for such a purpose. IL ought not to have
been kept open as common passage or
| thoroughfars The court further holds
| that IL was not a sufficient defence to
say that the man, when injured was not
/ engaged In the discharge of any work
/ for the mill. but was merely idling, since
| II was not Inconsistent with the proper
| discharge Of the euty to which he was
assigned that he should have exchanged
few words with a fellow-employe
! concerning a matter of common interest
to them and to their employer.
|
The officers Of loan company, beIiev-
| ing that crime had been committed.
sent TO police headquarters for a police
inspector. An inspector came to the Of
| flee and the officers told him all the ma
terial facts Il: the case, but they did not
| direct him to begin n prosecution They
| expected that he would make further in
vestigation. and that II. In the end he
determined that the case should be pros
ecuted, he would act accordingly; but
they did not direct him to act as their
agent. The person suspected was arrested
by the police inspector, whereupon she
began an action for malicious prosecu-
tion against the loan company on the
ground that the officers OF the company
had instigated the prosecution.
The trial court gave Judgment In favor
Of the company, and on appeal the Su-
preme Court (Massachusetts) affirmed
this judgment. The court held that the
police inspector acted in his public /capa-
city, and not as an agent of the COM
pany, and that because the company
stated the facts to the officer did not
affect the principle of law governing the
case. If a person." said the court. dis
closes fairly and truthfully to the officer
whose duty it is to detect crime all mat
tiers within his knowledge which, as a
man Of ordinary intelligence, he is bound
to suppose would have a material be-
ing upon the question of the innocencs
quit OF the person suspected. and les.
1t to the officer to act entirely upon
own Judgment and responsibility
public officer as to whether OF not In
shall be a criminal prosecution, and css-
no more, he cannot be held answerir-
In an action for malicious prosecute q.
even If the officer comes to the wrCss.
conclusion and prosecutes when he ougir
not to do 50. tBurnham VS.. Collateras
Loan Company. so, N. E. Rep, GID
person who is deprived of the oppor-
tunity of attending the funeral of his
grandmother by the failure of the
telegraph company to deliver a tele-
gram to him announcing her death, can
not recover damages against the COM
pany. according to the Supreme Court OF
Indiana, in the case of Western Union
Telegraph Company vs. Ferguson $50 N
h. Rep. cd. because he suffered neither
pecuniary nor bodily injury. and mental
anguish alone Is not an element of dam
ages.
"A bylaw Of fraternal orga rization'
known as Court Love and Truth" pro
hibited member from leaving his hoIce
without consent OF the court physician
while claiming sick hsrefits. A Judgment
was obtained against the organization by
one of its members for sick benefits, and
a new trial was asked on the ground
that new evidence had been discovered
to the effect that the member left his
house without the consent of the court
physician, but with the consent of
physician who was attending him, and
went to the lodge of the organization.
I he Supreme Court of Rhode Island held
that this evidence, IL shown as claimed,
would add nothing by way of substantial
defence.
An office of hotel is public place
within city ordinance providing for
punishment of any persons quarreling or
in a public place. according TO
the Supreme Court of Kansas, in the case
of City of Howard VS.. Stroud (65 Pac.
Rep, 40.
In an action by a third party against
the trustee in bankruptcy in the Circui:
Court, in which the property had been
adjudged tc the plaintifr as the owner.
Judge Boarman. of the United States
Circuit Court, f. ID. Louisiana, In the
case of Mcfarland Carriage Company VS..
Solanes Cl0s Fed. Rep. 5s2), holds that the
landlord Of a bankrupt, who was entitled
by the State statute to lien for rent
upon all property kept upon the leased
premises with the consent of the owner.
was entitled to intervene and assert such
len against the proceeds of such property
sold by the trustee.
When a public officer is removed for
specified causes, the Supreme Court Of
ohio. in the case of State VS.. Hogan (6o
n. E. Rep, $40. holds that such facts
must be stated as In Judgment of law
constitute the cause relied on, and an op-
,ortunity afforded the officer to be heard
before he can be legally removed by the
mayor; and the misconstruction of q
about which there may be an
honest difference of opinion, is not such
evidence of incompetency or misconduct
n the officer to warrant his removal
IN either of these grounds.
Though officers of corporation may
'wn substantially all of its stock, the
court of Appeals of New York, in the
ase of Saranac, etc. r. Co. VS.. Arnold
30 n. E. Rep. 64O, holds that they can
lot appropriate its property or money t1
heir own use; and ii they so appropriate
/, they are equally liable as If suck
money or property had belonged to an in
vidual.
A Justice of the peace cannot legally
erve a summons himself, which he ha.
ssued and if he does so he acquires nc
Jurisdiction thereby of the defendants
erson, according to the Supreme Court
f Mississippi in the case of McDugle vs.
Timer (29 So. Rep. 1866.
In North Carolina note endorsed and
transferred by n married woman without
er husbands knowledge or consent, does
ot vest the title in the endorsee. accord
lg to the Supreme Court OF that State in
he case of Vann VS.. Edwards C9 $. E.
,ep., 66).
A train IN reaching a station stopped
tile before the baggage car was placed
gainst the baggage to be taken on. A
ian was standing on the platform of
assenser car supporting himself by
aving his hand in position on the door
,cing The train was then moved for