The times., 1901-06-01
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
The use of voting machines. dispensing
with the necessity of a separate piece of
paper for each voter and registering the
successive votes by successive punches
by revolution of cogwheels or other SINH
lar device. the total number being shown
by an index, is not prohibited by the
constitution; according TO a recent decis-
Ion OF the Supreme Court e .s==aehn-
setts in Fe House bill No. 1921 go n. E
Rep. 129). Even the constitutional re-
quirernent that representatives shall be
chosen by written vote is not violated
oy voting machine in which the vote
is registered by causing a wheel to revoIve
fixed distance, and which Is so con-
nected with OF related TO a written or
printed name purporting TO be the name
of a candidate for Office as to express a
vote for the candidate whose name is
thus connected with the device.
A saIoonkeeper who sells liquor to an
intoxicated person, by which the latter
becomes so crazed that he commits a
homicide and is sent to the penitentiary,
Is liable to an action by the wife OF the
intoxicated person for loss Of support.
says the Supreme Court OF indiana in the
case OF Homire vs.. Halfman. t60 n. T.
Rep, 154.)
''Eiffel Tower lemonade cannot be sold
IN New York under a recent decision Of
the Supreme Court. appellate division, in
the case of People VS.. Park go n. Y
Supp. I120) This lemonade is made from
a dry, granulated mixture of a yellow
ish color, containing about IS per cent
sugar, 35 per cent tartaric acid, y per
cent citric acid. and per cent oil OF
lemon. On each box there are pictures
of lemons, and the advertising circular
stated that 3, 100000 OF Messina lemons
were used last year in the manufacture
of -Eiffel tower lemonade. The court
held that the defendant was selling
preparation which the public, from the
advertisement, would take to be made
from lemons. containing not only part
of the yellow rind. but the juice as well,
and that the defendant was holding the
article out to the public as made from
lemon juice.
a wife In Missouri, whose husband was
in fail for murder, procured revolver at
his instigation and delivered is TO him
that it might be used TO assist him in
escaping. She was tried and convicted
for this offence. But on appeal the SUI
preme Court (State vs. Miller, 81 5. w.
Rep, 6g2) reversed the judgment, holding
that she should have been acquitted on the
ground that she acted in obedience to the
will and direction of her husband, and
was in no sense the mover in the crime,
and that therefore she was excused in
law. The court said that ever a case
dulge the presumption in wife's favor
this is the one
An X-ray photograph of an object is
admissible in evidence, the Supreme
Court of Washington holds in the case OF
Miller VS.. Damon (64 Pac. Rep, 500. when
verified by proof that it is a true repre-
sentation, and an opinion of a medical
witness as to whether a bone has been
fractured is admissible. though based ON
an examination made by him by means
Of an X-ray negative taken by himself.
An Indian who voluntarily becomes
United States citizen, adopts the habits
Of civilized life, and lives separate and
apart from any tribe of Indians Is not
an Indian entitled to exemption from
axes, the Appellate Court OF Indiana
'ioners of Miami County IS. Godfrey. go
:. W. Rep, ND
Where a husband was compelled to
cave his wife on account of her cruel
reatment and misconduct. the fact that
Iuring the separation he is guilty of acts
ntitling his wife to a divorce would con-
titute no defence to his suit for divorce,
olds the Supreme Court of North Caro-
ina, in the case of Setter VS.. Setter (3S
J. l.. Rep, 131), since such acts would be
eeu1ed to have been done in consequence
f the wife's prior violation OF her marital
uty.
There can be no presumption that the
inmates of a lunatic asylum are danger
us or unskilIfui workmen from the fact
lone that they are insane. holds the Su-
RENE Court of California, in the case OF
.tkinson VS.. Clark ga Pac. Rep, 769), and
-, superintendent 9,i OF an insane asylum
Ist In tearing down brick wall is not
able for an injury received by a regular
Torkman. who was also engaged in the
Iork, unless the evidence shows that the
1perintendent was careless or unskiliful
/ the selection OF the inmates.
In an action for breach of promise a
erdict in favor of the plaintif for cent
as sustained by the Appellate Court of
ldiana in the case of Hooker VS. Phil
ppe go N. f. Rep, 16D. 1t was con-
ended by the plaintiff that the jury hav-
lg found in her favor necessarily found
lat there was a breach of contract, and
rat for such breach she was entitled to
ore than l cent. But the court held that
this class of cases the law does not fix
ny measure of damages, and that the
ardict OF the jury, in the absence of
rejudice or fraud. is conclusive OF the
Iestion of damages.
The Supreme Court has power to issue
writ of certiorari to review the deter
ination of a board of examination ap-
1Alleu unueE In2 miltdry code, holds the
ourt of Appeals of New York in the
sse of People ex rel. VS.. Hoffman go
|. E. Rep, 1SO, The application in this
:Se was on behalf of Clinton H. Smith
laJor in the Seventy-first Regiment OF
le National Guard of New York. who
as discharged on account of alleged cow
rdice and inefiiciency at the assault on
an Juan Hill. July l. 1898.
a city ordinance fixing stopping place
Dr street cars and nacks at depot and
squiring hack drivers to remain with
heir vehicles and forbidding them to
'licit passengers, but which contains no
milar provisions as to the persons in
? the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,
ex parte Vance (62 S. w Rep, 56S).
I the ground that it discrininates
sainst hackmen in their right to solicit
stronage in favor of street car men.
Where passenger oil a railway Is
refused permission 10 pass
rough the gates in order to board his
ain, the Appellate Court of Indiana. in
{ case OF Cleveland VS.. Kinsley go n.
Rep. 169), holds that he is entitled TO
cover damages, and that an element of
ch damages is the humiliation the pas
niger experienced on being refused the
sht TO enter. The court said that il
ould not be considered necessary in
1er 10 entltie the passenger to recover
his humiliation that he resent IL and
luire the application of physical force
his person before yielding to the wrong
requirements of ba ,a