The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-09
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


faitn by the board of directors OF dis
trict school. in response TO a request from
the county school commissioners to report
on the trouble between a teacher and her
pupils, Is held by the Supreme Court of
Missouri. In the case Of Finley vs. Steele
$50 S. W. Rep. 1881. to be qualified priv
fleged communication, for which plaintiff
was not entitled to recover damages on
the ground of libel. Among other things.
the report stated that the teacher whipped
the pupils numerically. pulled their ears.
called them liars. and otherwise mis-
treated them. The court held that a re.
covery could be had for communIca.
ton OF this character only where malice
was proven.
Newsboys who jump on street cars for
the purpose of selling their papers to
passengers are not entitled to the same
degree OF care from the railway as pas
sengers. holds the Supreme Court of Mis-
souri,, in the case OF Padgitt VS.. Moll
$50 5. w. Rep, 121) and II they are in
jured they cannot recover damages IL ths
railway has exercised ordinary care for
their protection. In discussing this point
the supreme Court said: "a newsboy
10 sell his newspapers not hailing to stop
the car to receive him, nor signaling to
stop 10 allow him to aligft. not asking
or receiving permission, either express or
tacit; not asking or waiting for leave or
license, but jumping on and off under cir
cumstances that clearly Indicate no pur-
pose to pay fare. and no aim to be trans.
ported. but only to avail himself of the
presence of persons on the ear likely to
buy his papers-is in no sense passenger,
and the carrier is not under obligations
to observe toward him the same degree
OF care that :hhe law requires to be OBJ
served toward person In the hands 0,
the carrier to be transported. But the
law does require. under such circum-
stances. the exercise OF ordinary care"
In this case the Dewsboy boarded NOV.
ing car on the front end, and, while
passing to the rear along the footboard,
was knocked off by the tongue OF a wagon
standing on the street, fell under the
car, and had his leg crushed, requiring
A provision In policy of life insurance
that "self-destruction. sane or insane is
a risk not assumed by the company under
the contract OF insurance, is held by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in
Company vs. Payne (105 Fed. Rep. 17e),
to apply only to suicide Intentionally COM
mitted, and does not include accidental
self-killing. The court said that the in
surers frame their own contracts, and
when they choose they may insert express
stipulations against accident, and that Il
they prefer. for the purpose of getting
custom, to omit such stipulation, and to
leave the matter in doubt. the doubt ought
to be resolved against them
The question as to how far and under
what circumstances a bad purpose will
render an act unlawful which would have
been lawful II the bad motive were absent
was presented before the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth circuit,
on the complaint OF the Passaic Print
Works against Ely & Walker Dry Goods
Company t105 Fed. Rep, 1881. The COM
plainant alleged that it was manufac-
turer of ealie0e5 of certain styles, which
it sold, at stated prices. to jobbers in St.
Louis; that the defendants, who were job
bers in that city having on hand "a lin
tied quantity of such calicoes, issued cir
culars to retail dealers offering to sell
the same at prices below those asked and
received from jobbers of the plaintiff; and
that such action was taken by the de-
PENDANTS for the purpose of injuring the
legitimate trade purpose of their own. The
court held that the complaint did not
state a cause OF action; that the owner OK
has an undoubted right TO sell It
At whatever price he deems proper, al
though the effect of such offer may be to
iepreciate the market value Of the COM
modify which he thus offers; and that
whatever the secret purpose may be is
since the outward visible act
Is lawful. On this point the court said:
1T has been we'll observed that it would
be dangerous to the peace of society to
admit the doctrine that any lawful act
an be transformed prima facie into an
wrong by a simple allegation
that the act was inspired by malice or Ill
WILL or by an improper motive IL 10
wiser. therefore TO exclude any enquiry
into the motives of men when their ac-
lions are lawful, except in those cases
where it is we'll established that malice
IS an essential ingredient of the cause OF
action, or in those cases where, the act
lone being wrongful proof of bad motive
will serve to exaggerate the damages
In proceeding for deporting China
man. where the defence is that he comes
within the privileged classes named in
he several Chinese Exclusion acts, Judge
Kicks of the United States District Court.
Y. D. Ohio, in the case OF United States
rs. Lung Hong 105 Fed. Rep, 1881, holds
hat the burden of proof rests on the
shinaman; and that when he claims to
,e a merchant, he must SHOW a fixed place
# business. and such frequent sales OF
merchandise as to ertitle him to be con-
,idered merchant within the ordinary
meaning of the term. OF an actual and
substantial interest in some firm of such
merchants.
The defendant in an appeal from judg
nent of conviction for selling whisky
lnlawfuliy in Lafayette County, Arkan-
sas, was granted new trial by the Su-
oreme Court because the evidence show
al that the sale had been made on boat
IN the Red River, the centre OF which
vas the boundary line between Lafayette
county and the adjoining county. and the
prosecution failed to prove on which side
II this boundary line the whisky was
old. The indie tment having charged that
he sale was made in Lafayette County,
he court held that there was Il failure
o prove venue. tCox VS.. State, 60 s. W.
Rep, 26.)
A personal injury suit recently before
he Supreme Court of New York, appel
ate division. illustrates the difficulty OF
by physical facts that an
.ccIdent could not have occurred In the
manner described by the witnesses. All
Il the witnesses testified that the plain
i'll, a passenger on a ferryboat, fell be-
ween the cleat and the rail so that his
DOT passed through the hole in the cieat.
nd was crushed between the boat and
ne rack as the boat was entering her
lip. The defendant sought to show by
that it was a physical I'M
disability for the accident TO have hap
ened In this manner hut the court held