The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-20
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

| In North Carolina a church member
| was expelled from his church for voting
the Democratic ticket. The persons in
| strumental in the expulsion were indicted
under the statute providing that any per-
son who Injuries. threatens, Expresses, or
| attempts to intimidate a voter because OF
| his vote at any election shall be guilty OF
Hisdemeanor. The indictment was
| quashed by the lower court, and the SUI
| preme Court, on appeal. sustained this
action, holding that none of the elements
\ in the statute Is embraced in the defend
| ant expulsion from the church. since he
| did not suffer loss OF property or gain
ana was not In any way restrained CT his
| liberty or otherwise controlled in the ex-
| ercise of his personal conduct. CState VS..
| Rogers, IS s. E. Rep, 34)
| When a person Is imprisoned under a
sentence for life in Kansas. does his prop
| erty. by that fact, descend to his heirs in
| all respects. as II he were naturally dead?
| This question, which was recently de-
i eitied by the Supreme Court OF that State
| in the case of Smith vs. Becker ga Pac.
| Rep. 10l. arose from the statutes pro-
/ Vlolng that when a person shall be i'm
| prlsoned under a sentence of imprison-
ment for life his estate. property, and eff
reefs shall be administered and disposed
| OF IN all respects as II he were naturally
dead. The court held that the statute
| Gid not cast the descent of the convict's
1 g.
\ administered as used in the statute re-
| stricted the administrator to the control
/ and disposition of personal property for
! the benefit of creditors to the end that all
| debts of the convict may be speedily paid
4 and that the words disposed Of are not
| broad and comprehensive enough to reach
| to and embrace that act of the law which
/ vests the ownership of property in an
| heir by Inheritance. In pointing out the
| incongruity of the convicts position in
| the event his property were held to de-
| scend to his heirs under the statute, the
| court said: From sucn sentence he may
appeal to this court within two years
| after the judgment is rendered. II he be
| granted a new trial. and finally secure
! an acquittal. or his discharge from i'm
| prisonment be ordered, we may see per-
| son. formerly civilly dead. living with his
| heirs who have inherited his property.
Again, IL would be entirely legal for such
| person, though once pronounced dead in
! law, to be appointed administrator of his
| own estate, or to be called upon to prove
| the execution of his own will In the
/ event of the convicted person making two
| wills, one before sentence and imprison-
ment and the other after his pardon or
acquittal, and Immediately prior to his
natural death. a confusing question would
| arise as to which will should be given
effect.
In recent case in Mississippi. where the
dead bodies of a man and his wife were
discovered at the same time in the woods.
mine which died first, in order TO decide
to whose heirs the property Of the hus-
band descended. The heirs of the wife
contended that the husband died first and
that his property descended to his wife,
and through her to them; while the heirs
of the husband claim that the wife died
first, or that they died at the same mo-
ment, and therefore the property passes
to the husbands heirs The evidence
showed that husband and wife went into
a certain woods one morning, the nus
band carrying a rifle. and shortly after
they entered the woods two reports from
the rifle were heard. Their bodies were
found that evening. the wife shot through
the body from behind, while the husband
was in a squatting position, with his rifle
across his knees, and the top OF his head
blown off. The evening was rainy and
the temperature was nearly freezing. The
body of the wife, when found, was warm,
| and there was evidence that she had
struggled in dying. but the body OF the
husband was cold and rigid. 1t was con-
coded that the husband had shot the wife,
either accidentally or Intentionally, and
then committed suicide. The court tSu-
preme) held that the wife survived her
husband, and that his property descended
to her and her heirs. This conclusion was
reached from the fact that the body OF
the wife was warm when discovered while
the husbands was cold, and, as the wealth
err was freezing. this condition Of the bod
les reasonably indicated that the wife did
not die until some time after being shot.
(Broome VS.. Duncan. % So, 39t)
The New York statutes authorizing the
construction and maintenance of side
paths for the use of bicycles along pub
lie roads and streets and for use of such
paths by persons riding bicycles have
been declared constitutional by the Su-
preme Court, appellate division, in the
case of Ryan VS.. Preston. and held not
to impose an additional burden on the
highway, and not to be use of the high
titled to compensation. The court said
that the regulation combining the bicycles
to the use of such paths no more imposed
an additional burden upon the use of the
highway, as affecting the right of an
abutting owner, than would statute re-
quiring all vehicles going in either direc-
ton to keep to the right. 1t was object
ed that the bicycle paths would interfere
with the custom of hitehing horses, but
the court said that no case had been cited
establishing the absolute right of OBJ
strueting travel upon a highway by hitch
ing horses.
Is charitable medical institution liable
for the negligence of one of its surgeons
in operating on a patient gratuitously?
The Supreme Court, appellate division.
of New York. in a recent decision, in the
case of Collins vs. New York Post-Grad-
uate Medical School and Hospital (69 n.
Y. Supp. 1850. holds that such an institu-
ton is not liable for damages where the
surgeon it employs has been selected with
proper care, and with no reason to be
lieve him to be negligent or incompetent.
When the institution has exercised due
care in the selection of its surgeons and
other employees. the court holds that it
has then fulfilled its duty, and is not re-
sponsible for their negligence.
In a prosecution for violating the laws
prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine in
imitation OF natural butter. the Supreme
Court, appellate division, of New York,
in the case of People VS.. Hillman $50 n. Y
Supp. co, holds that, in order to convict.
II is necessary TO show that the defendant
kept the oleomargarine for sale as an imi-
tauon OF butter. and, because the defen-
dant bought IL as butter, ii does not fol-
low that he knew that it had been manu-
featured as an imitation of natural but
ter. In commenting on the attempt to
prove the color of natural butter, in order
that a comparison might be made the
court said that there is not and from the
nature OF things cannot be, proof of a fix
the market, and that the court could not
take judicial notice OF the color of natural
butter, because no single color could be
designated as that of natural butter.
What constitutes lake has been defin-
ed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in
the recent case of the Illinois Steel Com
pany VS.. Blot (S5 N w Rep. 1927. The
court holds that it is not necessary that a
particular locality should be wholly COW
cred by water constantly, or be covered
sufficiently 10 be susceptible of navigation.
to give it the character of lake bed as
regards title thereto; but that if a body
of water is not river, yet is reasonably
in character. il is pond or lake
and the limits thereof are the natural
shore, though water does not constantly
stand at that point.