The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-27
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

erty. But instead OF being tried for the
alleged offence for which he 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 its having
been made: that he was detained in prison
for period of time after his arraign-
ment upon the charge; and was subse-
quently rearraigned and held for trial
upon another charge of having committed
a misdemeanor. The fact, however. that
at the time of the arrest the plaintiff may
nave been, although unknown to the de-
PENDANT. guilty of misdemeanor is no
! justification for the trespass. as 1t is con-
tended. In the first place II the plaintiff
was not placed under arrest for mis-
demeanor. then he was Illegally impris-
oned from November to November TO-
During that period he was falsely i'm
prisoned on a 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 illegality of persons
arrest upon an unfounded charge could be
| cured by the subsequent charge and con-
yfction 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 t3s 8. E. Rep, 49, since
such action would be in effect an action
n fort nf
| 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 1t is lost by the failure OF the
bank, the Supreme Court of Colorado, in
| the case of Gartley vs. People ga 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-
tvs 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
case of O Brien VS.. Bennett (69 n. Y.
Supp, 29S, not to be admissible in an ac-
ton 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 to 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 a min
lister. and who performs a marriage cere-
mony, followed by living together, con-
Gildersleeve, of the New York Supreme
Court, special term. in the case of Herr
Vs. Herr $50 N. Y. Supp, 4IS.
Forcibly entering dwelling house and
numbering therein a servant of the owner
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.. Gay (sS s. E. Rep,
SD. on the theory that because of the
commission of the crime plaintiffs family
abandoned the house and refused to live
in It, 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-
tablishing of any oral contract made
through an intermediary, holds the Su-
preme Court of New Jersey in the case of
Henderson Manufacturing Company VS.
Moore (4S Att. Rep, 525).
Affidavits made before notary of an
other State are void, holds the Supreme
Court of Illinois in the case of Bell VS..
Farwell go n. E. Rep, 1861, where the
notary makes no certificate of his au-
to- thcs Ian
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 smaller
manufacturers, wherein it was agreed that
envelopes should not be sold by any of
the parties to the contract except at
scheduled prices fixed by corporate
agent of the larger company, was held
to be void by the Court of Appeals of
New York, in the case of Cohen VS.. Ber-
lin AZ Jones Envelope Company ((o9 y. q.
Rep, 800, 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-
HANGED; and the court further held that IL
mattered not that the parties to 1t may
the sum exacted for the product seemed
to s0i-.e persons reasonable. as the scope
of the contract, and not the possibility of
self-restraint Of the parties TO 1t, 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
hal6 nv no
of California, in the case Of Schomberg
VS.. Walker t64 Pac. Rep, 200. to be libel
Gus. false and unprivileged publlca-
ton. which exposes person to hatred.
contempt, or ridicule.
A punitive order of the Court of Chan
Gerry filming or imprisoning u party for
contempt is held by the Court of Errors
and Appeals of New Jersey. in the case
of Grand Lodge VS.. Jansen AS Att Rep,
SGD. not to be appealable, II the matter
and party be within the jurisdiction of
the court
The objection that judge sitting in the
United States Circuit Court is disqual-
fled because of personal interest or rela-
tionship to the parties from acting upon
preliminary questions arising in suit
is one for determination by such judge.
holds the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals, in the case of ColtraIse VS.. Tenn
plet0n titS Fed. Rep, 800, and his decision
that he is not disqualified from acting in
such matters is not renewable by appeal
own moneys in the improvement of the
property of his wife is presumed to be a
gift to her. In the absence of proof of a
contrary intent. holds the Court of Err
rors and Appeals of New Jersey, in the
case of Solver VS.. Solver tiS All. Rep,