The times., 1901-04-27
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS

erty. But instead Of being tried for the
alleged offence for which ne was ar
rested, he was rearraigned upon a charge
of carrying concealed weapons. and for
this offence he was convicted. The Court
of Appeals said:
THE situation was. therefore. that the
plaintiff had been placed under an arrest
without reasonable cause for it's having
been made: that he was detained in prison
for period of time after his arraign-
ment upon the charge; and was suose-
quently rearraigned and held for trial
upon another charge of having committed
misdemeanor. The fact, however. that
at the time of the arrest the plaintiff may
have been, although unknown to the de-
fendant. guilty of a misdemeanor is no
justification for the trespass. as 1t is con-
tended. In the first place II ihe plaintiff
was not placed under arrest for a mis-
demeanor, then he was Illegally impris-
oned from November 9 TO November 10.
During that period he was falsely i'm
prisoned on charge for which there was.
as 1t has been found. no reasonable cause.
In the next place, the illegality of the
arrest was not. and could not be. cured
by the subsequent charge of having COM
mitted a misdemeanor, for which a con-
viction was eventually had.
The procedure in this case was with
out warrant in the law. 1t would not do
to hold that the illegaiity of a persons
arrest upon an unfounded charge could be
cured by the subsequent charge and con-
vtction for another offence"
A prison guard who is injured by fall
ing from defective ladder cannot main
tain an action for damages against the
States prison. holds the Supreme Court
of North Carolina in the case of Moody
| VS.. States Prison (3S 9. E. Rep. 131), since
such action would be in effect an action
| against the State TO recover for a tort Of
| its agents. and on the grounds Of public
! policy such an action cannot be permitted
If, in the exercise OF reasonable care,
the treasurer of a county deposits in
! bank reputed to be safe money of an in
testate. which is paid to him under stat
ute, and it is lost b. the failure OF the
bank, the Supreme Court of Colorado. in
/ the case of GartIey VS.. People (64 Pac-
| Rep 20S), holds that the treasurer and
/ his sureties are not liable on his bond,
| since such money was not public funds,
/ but private fund entrusted to the coun-
| ty's care and therefore the extraordinary
| liability of receivers of public money does
not apply.
| The rules of a newspaper publisher for
bidding his employees to publish any state
ment rejecting on anyone, without due
| investigation, are held by the New York
Supreme Court, appellate division. in the
case of O'Brien VS.. Bennett C69 n. Y.
Supp, 29S). not to be admissible in an ac-
| tion for libel, as bearing on the question
| of malice, but are only pertinent to the
question whether the article was pub
| lished without proper enquiry as 10 its
/ truth.
The promise OF two persons to take each
| other as husband and wife in the presence
of one who holds himself out as min
ister and who performs a marriage cere-
mony, followed by living together, con-
stitutes a legal marriage, holds Judge
| Gildersleeve, of the New York Supreme
| Court, special term, in the case of Herr
vs.. Herr go n. Y. Supp, 47s).
Forcibly entering dwelling house and
numbering therein a servant of the owner
I does not entitle such owner to recover Of
the wrongdoer the value of the premises.
holds the Supreme Court of Georgia, in
the case of Clark VS.. Cay (3s 8. E. Rep.
| 81, on the theory that because of the
commission of the crime plaintiff s family
abandoned the house and refused TO live
I in II, and that in consequence it has be-
| come worthless.
The mere fact that a conversation is by
means of a telephone does not put upon
| the party proving it any greater burden
| of proof than that involved in the es-
| IdDflSnlDS OF any oral contract MADE
( through an intermediary. holds the ST.
/ preme Court of New Jersey in the case Of
Henderson Manufacturing Company VS..
/ Moore (4S Att. Rep, 525).
| Affidavits made before a notary of an
| other State are void, holds the Supreme
| Court of Illinois in the case of Bell VS..
| FarweII go N E. Rep, 1861, where the
/ notary makes no certificate OF his au-
/ thority TO administer oaths under the laws
/ Of that State, and no other evidence OF
/ such authority is submitted to the court.
| A contract between an envelope com
| pany which manufactures So per cent OF
/ the envelopes Of the country and a smaller
| manufacturer, wherein it was agreed that
envelopes should not be sold by any of
the parties 10 the contract except at
| scheduled prices fixed by a corporate
/ agent of the larger company, was held
1 to be void by the Court of Appeals of
| New York in the case of Cohen VS. Ber-
/ lin a Jones Envelope Company ((09 y. e.
| Rep. 9O1), on the ground that such con-
/ tract threatens a monopoly, whereby
| trade in a useful article may be re-
strained and its price unreasonably en-
| hanced; and the court further held that il
mattered not that the parties TO IL may
| have so moderately advanced prices that
| the sum exacted for the product seemed
| 10 some persons reasonable. as the scope
/ of the contract, and not the possibility or
| seIf-restraint Of the parties to it, is the
| test of its validity.
| A publication In a newspaper headed
! Ring charging that the board of trus-
| tees had the ring in the nose of the
| taxpayers last Monday night in most
| contemplate Illegal. and unjust manner.
and unworthy of citizens elected TO look
| after the best interests of our little
town. was held by the Supreme Court
| of California, in the case OF SchOmberg
| VS. Walker t64 Pac. Rep, 299), TO be libel
| Gus, as a false and unprivileged publica-
| tion. which exposes a person to hatred.
| contempt, or ridicule.
A punitive order of the Court of Chan
Gerry filming or imprisoning q party for
| contempt is held by the Court of Errors
| and Appeals of New Jersey. in the case
| of Grand Lodge VS.. Jansen CAS- Att Rep.
| 526l. not to be appealable. II the matter
| and party be within the jurisdiction OF
| the court.
| The objection that a judge sitting in the
United States Circuit Court is disQuaH-
| fled because of personal interest or rela-
| tionship TO the parties from acting upon
| preliminary questions arising in suit
! is one for determination ny such judge.
| holds the United States Circuit Court of
| Appeals, in the case OF Coltrane vs. Tenn
! pletOu 0G6 Fed. Rep, 300, and mis- decision
| that ne is not disqualified from acting in
| such matters is not renewable by appeal
| The expenditure by a husband of his
| own moneys in the Improvement of the
| property of his wife is presumed 20 be a
! gift 70 her in the absence of proof of a
| contrary intent holds the Court of Err