The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-12
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


| niece. in violation of a statute prohibiting
such marriage because of consanauInitv
and prescribing punishment therefore.
on the death OF her husband the widow
attempted to renounee his will and claim
statutory dover in his estate in Kentucky.
But the circuit court held that she was
not entitled to dover, and on appeal the
Court of Appeals affirmed this Judgment.
The contention Of the widow was that
the marriage, although prohibited by
statute, was not absolutely void. and this
being true, and the marriage not having
been adjudged void during the life OF the
parties. 1t must be treated a.. a valid mar
rage. But the Court of Appeals held that
the marriage was void from the begin
ming, and, therefore the wife was not en-
titled to dover. (McIlyain VS. ScheibIey,
50 5. W. Rep. 1851
Placing a debtors name on a blacklist as
one who does not pay his honest debts is
held in Weston vs. Barnicoat Mass. 40
L. X. Il, 612l TO constitute a libel. for
which he is entitled to damages notwith-
standing the fact that he may not have
paid his debt where there was a valid
counter claim which justified its non-pay-
ment.
\ party OF young meG Il ftt5iciy was
out sereEading until about 2 o'clock in
the morning, when they started for their
homes. Their way lay across a railroad
track. and several Of them sat for while
on the ties to rest. One of them declined
to go. when they started again. and he
was left sitting on the track, apparently
asleep. train soon came along and
struck him, inflicting injuries from which
he died. Suit was brought against the
railroad company and judgment was
given in Its favor in the trial. and was af-
hrmed, on appeal, by the Court of APP
peals. The court held that the deceased
was trespasser in being on the track.
as he was not crossing It, and that he was
guilty Of the gTossest negligence in sitting
down on the track and going to sleep.
lyons. admir-, VS.. l. C. r. Co.. 80 S. ".
Rep, 500
The fact that horse balks and kicks
while on the road does not raise the in
ference. hold the Supreme Court On.
", Appellate term, in the case Of Ben
nett VS. WaiIard (67 y. Y Supp. $50,
that he would kick while in his stall. 80
as in an action for damages against the
owner Of a savage and vicious horse for
Injuries inflicted by the horse, it is neees-
sary TO show knowledge in the owner OF
the propensities OF the horse. plain tiff
cannot recover by simply showing that the
horse kicked while on the road; for It
does not follow that the tiwHer had no.
tiee Of this, and it cannot be presumed
that the horse also kicked while in the
stable.
Under recent decision Of the New York
Supreme Court, Appellate division. In the
case Of Smith vs.. Kingston City Railway
Company (6f y. Y. Supp, 1851. woman
who is injured by her dress catching on
the hanges of street car as she alights
is not guilty Of contributory negligence in
wearing dress so long as to render it
likely to catch upon such appliances. It
was the ,idig OF the CONDUCTOR the court
held, TO see that her skirts were clear
from any such attachment before he
started the car; and IL he started before
he knew that she was thus free It was
negligent method Of starting, and he took
the chances.
In New Hampshire statute forb:dding
persons over twelve years old from riding
bicycles on sidewalks was attacked on the
ground that it confiicted with the Four
tenth Amendment Of the Constitution OF
the United States, in that it was an I'M
reasonable regulation of the public right
to use the highways. But the Supreme
Court held, on appeal, that the statute
was constitutional The court said that
highways ars used By a great number OF
people travelling on foot, on bicycles and
otherwise, and-hat the problem present.
ed to the Legislature was TO so regulate
this travel that all the differen. modes
could be carried on in the same highway
with reasonable safety and despatch.
The purpose OF the above statute, the
court held, was TO protect persons on me
i H..
riders of bicycles and its provisions could
not be considered an unreasonable or ar
bitrary exercise of legislative power.
Estate VS.. AIdrich, AZ ALL Rep, 6G2.)
One who charges an appraiser with hav-
ing sold out to the other side, is held by
the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the
case of Earle VS.. Johnson (s4 n. W. Rep,
1927, to be guilty Of SANDER, and a verdict
against him for the sum of 81. 500 is held
not 10 be excessive
The New York Court of Appeals in the
recent case of Montgomery VS.. Buffalo
Company, holds that a street
ailway company has the right, and It is
is duty, to make rules and regulations
o ensure the safe, effective. and COM
ortabIe operation of its corporate BUSH
less, and whether any particular rule is
awful and reasonable is a question of law
or the court that rule forb,dding pas
engers to stand on the platform of a car
S a reasonable one and, II a passenger
efuses to comply Herewith. the ccnduc-
or may lawfully eject him from the car;
nd that the fact that the passenger was
offering from sick headache and expected
o be affected with nausea al any moment
S not an excuse for violating the rule
gainst riding upon the platform. THE
'lairtih." said the court, If in the physi-
al condition described by him upon the
lay in question. was not obliged to travel
Ipon the defendants car, but, if he chose
o do so, he was bound to submit to its
equations"
An innkeeper's lien upon property of
bird person brought to the inn by a guest
5 denied in McClain VS.. Williams IS. D.
. L. R. A, 610). where the statute gives
lien on property OF guests, and provides
hat effects belonging to- any person who
eparts without paying his bill may be
old to satisfy it.
bank cashier who was under bond for
he faithful performance OF his duty, and
'bo discounted a note which the board Of
irectors had ordered him not TO discount.
held by the Court of Appeals of Ken
rcky in the case OF Cassell VS.. Mercer
,dtional Bank go S. W Rep, 504) to
ave violated his bond.
The heir of a deceased fireman cannot
aintain an action against the publisher
a newspaper, hold the Supreme Court
! California, in the case OF Mailman VS..
earst (62 Pac. Rep, 1063), TO recover
IS part of money which was contributed