The Washington times., 1901-11-30
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


| Where a reward has been offered for
| the arrest and conviction OF certain mur-
aerers. and a person who does not know
OF the reward gives information leading
/ to the conviction of the murderers. the
! Supreme Court of Illinois, in the case OF
| Williams VS.. West Chicago St. r. CO. f6l
| N. E. Rep. 1867. holds that he is not en-
/ titled to the reward since no contract is
/ created between him and the person Of
/ fering the reward. The reason OF the
rule Is that the services OF the claimant
are rendered in consequence Of the Of
/ fered reward, from which an implied
I promise is raised on the part OF the per-
son Offering the reward to pay him the
amount thereof because of the perform
ance by him OF such service; and no such
promise can be implied unless he knew
at the time of the performance OF the
service that the reward had been offered
and in consideration thereof and with a
view to earning same. rendered the ser
vice specified in such offer. And the court
further held that in order TO entitle
person to the reward he must prove that
he assisted in both the apprehension and
conviction Of the guilty parties.
The fact that an attorney in a case pub
licly treats" members of the jury liz a
saloon ana holds private conversations
with them after they are sworn in the
case will not cause the verdict to be set
aside. holds the Superior Court of Della
ware in the case of Pritehard VS.. Hen
derson go Atl Rep, 21T, where the con-
versations are explained on oath by the
attorney. Jurors. and saloonkeeper, and
a nf To hay had f,du
on the verdict, and where the evidence is
sufficient to support the verdict.
A Governors extradition warrant need
not set forth facts nor grounds upon
which the same is issued with the GER
tainty required in criminal pIeadings,
holds the supreme Court off off Minnesota in
the case Of State VS.. Justus tS7 y. W.
Rep, 770). If it appears therein that under
the Federal Constitution and the act OF
Congress the prisoner is demanded as a
fugitive, 1t is sufficient.
A municipal ordinance providing that
one who applies for liquor license must
make an affidavit designating the place
where the business is 10 be conducted.
that the applicant will carry 1t on person
ally and that the rooms in which 1t shall
be conducted are not adjacent to any
building wherein theatrical or variety en-
tertainnents are conducted, is he'd by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota in the case
of State W. Scatena, (S7 n. w Rep). to
be reasonable exercise of the power con-
ferred upon the municipality by its chart
er. and one who executed a false affidavit
in the particulars defined by the ordinance
is guilty of perjury.
A verdict of $4,000 in an action for false
imprisonment was exec ssive where the
plaintiff was only charged with a misde-
meanor when arrested, and was kept in
custody about three hours, and suffered
no unusual indignity and no violence,
holds the Court OF Appeals of Kentucky
in the case of Schneider VS.. McGIi, (64 S.
w. Rep, $3.50.
The majority of the members of a
partnership may in case OF diversity OF
opinion, manage the business as they
see fit, acting in good faith and within
the powers necessary to the management
and not withheld by the articles of part
nership without being liable for losses
which could not be foTeseen. Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of
Markle vs.. Wilbur, 80 Att. Rep, 204)
A decree or order for aiimony in a
the meaning of that term as used in the
Constitution prohibiting Imprisonment for
debt, holds the Supreme Court of Wash
ington in &c Cave (66 Pac. Rep, 425).
man who was divorced and had mar
ried again was killed in railway aeci-
dent, leaving both his second wife and
divorced wife surviving him. In a suit
against the railway company for damages
by the second wife it was contended by
the company that in order for her to main
tain her action she had to prove that her
husband had been legally divorced from
his first wife otherwise it would not ap-
pear that the second marriage was valid.
But. on appeal, the Supreme Court denied
the contention of the company and held
that the court must presume that a mar
riage is valid until the contrary is shown,
and that the burden of proof is on the
party questioning the marriage to show
that it is illegal. (Beardsley VS.. Vicks-
burg Railway CompanyJ