The times., 1901-06-29


cart turned from the street into tn
| driving toward the boys so negli
that unless they moved they woul
over. In their efforts to escape
boys moved the log in such '
| throw the other under the whee
wagon and he was seriously inj
suit against the owner of the
the injured boy the lower court
he could not recover because
thrown under the wagon wheel
movement of the log. and that
this movement was caused by h
the other boy. the cause of the
was not one for which the defen
liable On appeal, however, the
Court CPennsylvania) reversed
ment of the lower court and deg
the boy could recover, as the wrt
Of the driver was the direct al
mate cause Of the boys injury.
him" said the court. in a PC
imminent peril, where ne would
run over If he had sat still. al
his only means of escape was
the side of the horse and in frof
wheel. II the log had been in his
he had fallen over IL. or If il had
there at all. and he had tripped al
from some other cause as he ran.
while resulting in his injury by pr
his escape, would not have been
nant cause, but only an incident o.
result is the same If the mOvemeD
log forced him under the whes
whether it's movement was eau
Kennedy (the other boy), in striki.
he passed. or by the plaintiff In
from il, either act would be an acc
one. resulting from the alarm and
sity for hasty action caused by tbs
gent act of the driver, and neither
relieve the defendant of respons
chambers VS.. Carroll, 49 Att. Rep,
Where q father permits an iIlfan
90 handle a loaded gun. when tn
is, from age or mental weakness.
use of intoxicants, incompetent to
trusted with a deadly weapon,
father knows the danger, or shou
known it in the exercise of reai
care, the Court of Appeals ef kerts
the case of Meers VS. Mcdowell IS
Rep, 1913, holds that the father
for whatever injury the child
with the weapon. It has been 81
held that man who places in the
of a child an article of dangerous
acter. and one likely to cause inju
the child itself, or to others is
of an actionable wrong: so IL a drT
should sell a child deadly drug
to cause harm to the child or injU
others, he would certainly be Liable
action
The attempt to bribe witnesses at
ing trial in which they are to I
when it occurs in the hallway Oh
courthouse. or adjoining the buildiT
the outside, is held by the Supreme {
of Wyoming, in the case OF Fisher
Mcdaniel (64 Pae- Rep, 1866, 10 be p
ishable as a contempt occurring in
presence of the court
- L. ;.Ta Z
TO whom it belongs, or from the circu
stances under which 1t was found I;
owner could reasonably be ascertain
the Court of General Sessions of De
ware. in the case of State VS.. Steve
propriates it and converts 1t to his o.
use he is guilty of felonious intent, &C
stituting larceny.
A passenger who alights from a movi
car is not necessarily guilty of negliger
as a matter of law, holds the Suprei
Court of Georgia, in the case of COurs
VS.. Southern Railway Company (3S s.
Rep, S66). and unless it is shown thu
at the time the passenger attempted
leave the moving car, il was running
such a high rate of speed as would re
der the attempt to alight obviously da
llC QuCSlAoI NilCLnCl SbCn dU 4
tempt was or was not negligence on t
part of the passenger is a question of IA
to be determined by the jury.
Where telegraph company negligent
delivered a different message from tn
which IL was authorized to deliver,
that the sender was represented as o
ferlng goods at a lower price than tn
at which he had in fact offered them,
the supposed offer was accepted in
norance OF the mistake. the Court of 4
peals OF Kentucky, in the case of Pos
Telegraph Cable Company VS.. Shaef
(62 S. W. Rep, 1ll9l, holds that there W;
no contract. and the sender was n
bound to deliver the goods at the low
price.
In a prosecution in Texas for Violate
Of the Sunday law against selling intox
eating liquors. the Court of Criminal Al
peals of Texas, in the case of Burne
VS.. State (62 S. w. Rep, IO63), holds th'
where the defendant was employed to a
sist in cleaning out a saloon, and mOviI
The fixtures on Sunday. and while so el
gagged carried a pint of whisky from Il
to a person who stood OutSiC
the door. who received the whisky frOl
the defendant. the latter was guilty
assisting in the sale of intoxicating
Iuors on Sunday. and was properly cor
gicted.
Where no dishonesty or anything of
nature is imputed TO stor'
keeper. the Appellate Court of Indiana.
The case of Guethler VS.. Altman go N
Rep. 1850, holds he has no right OF actio
against a school teacher and member
IF a school board because they maliciou:
v dissuaded pupils. by threats or othel
wise, from trading with him.
A person using certain advertising ma
.er and labels cannot restrain another b
injunction from using matter alleged
be similar where the only resembianC
S the prominence given a name which
he surname of both parties, holds the 81
lreme Court of Rhode Island in the cas-
If Harson VS.. Halkyard Q6 Atl., 21D.
The purchaser of a railroad passenge
ticket must take notice of the time linn
tation printed or stamped on the face Q
The ticket, holds the Supreme Court q
Louisiana in the case of Coburn vs.. MOI
sans Louisiana. etc. r. Company t29 -
Rep, $50. and the limit of one day @
such a ticket Is not unreasonably short.
BY the common law. ownership of do
carried with it property rights sutficier
TO afford the owner a civil remedy for II
iuries to the animal. holds the Suprem
Court of Alabama In the case of Louis
-iIle. etc, r. Company VS. Fitzpatrick &
So. Rep. S59), and the owner of a dog ca
an action against railrea
company to recc=s- damages for the fSS
- = "a