The Washington times., 1901-09-21
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

U
tai Company. In conspiracy with an ac-
| sending forged telegram purporting to
have been signed by corresponding bank
directing thSt that amount be paid to the
accessory. An action was brought In the
United States Circuit Court against the
| telegraph company by the defrauded bank
TO recover for the wrongful act OF the
operator of the company. Judgment was
| rendered In favor of the bank. and an
appeal was taken by the company to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
On appeal the court thus stated the ques-
tion involved: Whether or not tele-
graph company can be held responsible
in damages for the criminal use of its
| wires and instruments by subordinate
empioye acting in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy with an outside party. aud in
criminal violation of the duties of his
position and employment. The court said
that the question and legal principles re-
lating thereto were unusual and exceed
ingly interesting and important. and that
the decision must be rendered with refer
ence to general principles OF law. there
were no decided cases directly in point.
After an extended review OF the authori-
ties the court held that the act of the
telegraph operator in sending the false
message. although criminal, and unau-
thorized by the company. was within the
apparent scope Of his employment and it
was by reason OF his employment that he
that persons dealing with the telegraph
company had the right to believe that the
operator was reliable and possessed OF
authority. and that IL he violated his duty,
whereby one of two innocent persons must
suffer loss. the telegraph company must
sustain the loss. as that company made
the act possible by employing a dishonest
operator. fPacffic Postal Company vs.
Bank of Palo Alto. 100 Fed. Rep. 369)
The reading from standard work on
medical Jurisprudence and introducing the
authors conclusions on the question as to
how far from the target a weapon would
have to be to leave any powder marks
upon it, for the purpose Of showing that
the deceased did not accidentally shoot
herself with a pistol. but was shot by the
defendant. was held by the Supreme
Court of Alabama in the case Of Timothy
VS.. State go So Rep. 3as) to be reversible
error, for which a new trial was granted
The evidence for the prosecution, went to
show that the defendant and deceased
were in room together. no cne else being
present, and that he shot her. He testi-
fled that the girl accidentally shot her
self while handling his pistol. There were
no indications of powder burns or stains
or particles on the face of the deceased.
AS tending to show that such Indications
would have existed had the pistol been
in the hands of the deceased when the
shot was fired. the prosecution read from
works of medical Jurisprudence to show
that marks and burns from weapons crdi-
narily used will scarcely appear when the
distance has exceeded ten or twelve feet
The court held that this was error. say
ing: 1T Is competent. of course, to put in
evidence passages from standard medical
works pertinent to wounds and personal
physical conditions under enquiry; but we
are of the opinion that the matter here
adduced is not Of that character. 1t does
not pertain to the science of medicine or
surgery. Men of these professions are no
more competent to make such expert
ments and draw conclusions therefrom
than other men. and their opinions In the
premises stand upon the same evidential
plane as the opinions of laymen. and to
be received in the same way and under
the same circumstances Such opinions
are never admissible unless the persons
giving them are shown to be experts and
then by the word OF mouth of such ex-
perts under OATH
A convict imprisoned for life killed a
fellow convict. On the trial 1t was urged
that the statute, which provides that
ANY convict sentenced to imprisonment
for life who commits murder in the first
degree while such sentence remains in
force against him. must, on conviction,
suffer DEATH" was unconstitutional. be-
cause y was class legislation. But the
court (Supreme Court of Alabama) held
that the statute was valid. and that the
punishment imposed by It is the only one
that cou.,s be effectually inflicted; that
any less degree of punishment would
amount to no punishment at all This
is sufficient" said the court. to maintain
and justify the classification made by the
statute. 1t is clear that the statute ap-
plies alike to all convicts who, while
under sentence to imprisonment for life,
commit murder in the first degree, wheth-
er the Imprisonment Is the result of
conviction for murder in the first degree
or any other offence punished by impris-
onment for life" Civilians vs.. State, so
So. Rep, 36.)
Where the United States surveyed and
plated land about a lake. and then pat
ented the tracts according to its plats,
which showed these tracts bounded by
the lake, and made no attempt to correct
its survey until after complainants had
purchased of tie patentees for full value
Government, the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals. in the case Of kirwan
VS.. Murphy no9 Fed Rep. 35D. holds that
the United States cannot correct the sur
vey and revoke its grants.
Where a person hires an animal for a
specified kind of work. and for definite
time, and. in violation of the bailment.
Such person uses II Tor other ana dlf-
ferent labor. or for time longer than
that specified for, the Supreme Court OF
Alabama in the case of Ledbetter VS.
Thomas go So Rep. 3i2). holds that such
unauthorized use by the bailee is con-
version of the animal for which the bailor
may maintain trover for its value.
A Judge of the Superior Court is not dis
qualified from presiding at the trial of an
Indictment merely because previously
thereto he held court of enquiry and
bound the prisoner over, holds the Su-
preme Court of Georgia in the case of
Cochran VS.. State GO S. E. Rep. 3SIj.
Courts will not interfere with the ac-
tions of the Department of the Interior i'm
its disposition of public lands. or decree
to whom patent or deed shall issue. holds
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in the
case of Hammer VS.. Hermann t65 Pac.
Rep. 943l.
Any stipulation. agreement, or contract
which forbids the debtor from discharging
his obligation by borrowing money. in
whole or in part, except from the creditor.
is held by the Supreme Court of Okla
homa in the case of Union Central Life
Insurance Company VS.. Champlin (e5 Pac-
Rep. S6), 20 be subversive of the rights
of the citizen, injurious to the general
welfare of the public and is therefore
void on the high ground of public policy
Hence the provision contained in the note
sued on in this action TO the effect that
the right OF the maker to make payment
at any time is waived, providing the
money rendered is borrowed in whole or
in part elsewhere. is contrary to public
policy, and is therefore void