The Washington times., 1901-11-23
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

the word accompanied instead OF "ac-
complished." The instruction was one
defining the crime OF robbery. and stated
that robbery Is the felonious taking OF
personal property from the possession
'of another, from his person or immedi-
ate presence, and against his VIII ac-
companied (instead of accomplished BIZ
means of force or fear The court held
that accomplished should have been
used and that there was a clear and
material distinction between the two
words. In illustrating this. the court
said; a. fclOniously and against BIS
VIII, takes from the person OF chat
tel in his possession. the taking being ae-.
conpanied. bat not accomplished. by
means of force. Although : may Asi
guilty OF larceny, he Is not guilty of rob
hery. The means OF force and fear NAV
accompany Chat IS. be present at 20
! with, Or be associated With a felonious
taking, and yet not be the means or
agency by which the taking is accom-
pllshed-that is. effected, contaminated,
/ completed. or executed
In an action to recover damages for
personal injuries alleged to have been
sustained by the plaintiff in falling down
an elevator-shaft, negligentiy Ieft open.
| in the defendants warehouse. tie Su-
| prenie Court of California. in the case of
( sheyer VS.. Lowell (6s Pac Rep. 3G75,
holds that the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict on the following facts: In the or
/ dinary course of business the plaintiff
went to the defendants store, and was
| told by the porter that it would be neces-
| sary to take the elevator to the upper
[ floor to obtain the goods desired. The
| porter seized the rope Of the elevator, to
bring the elevator down from the floor
above, and the plaintiff, thinking the eIe-
vator was about to start up. attempted to
go upon it, stepped into the opening. and
was injured. The elevator had no guard
rail, and, though it was too dark for the
plaintiff to distinguish objects, the porter
failed to warn him of the danger. On the
trial OF the case the plaintiff introduced a
city ordinance requiring that every
opening in a shaft or hoist we'll within
two and one-half feet above the floor shall
be protected by a rail gate, door. or drop
door" The objection urged to the ordi-
nance was that it ;Sas intended only to
protect fremen- policemen. etc. and was
persons TO which this plaintiff belonged.
But the court heId that the ordinance was
intended for The benefit and protection OF
any person who might suffer by reason
Of its provisions having been violated.
The proyision in the sixth amendment
to the Federal constitution which or
dairs that ,f5c accused shall se tried in
the district where the crime shall have
taen committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by
law. has no application to the judicial
districts in the Territories OF the tinted
states, holds the Supreme Court Of Okla,
hOma. in the case of Nahaffey vs.. Terri
tory (G6 Pac. Rep., 342). This provision
of the Federal Constitution applies only
to the Federal courts in the States.
where the manufacturer of a patent
medicine invariably sells the same under
contract whereby the purchaser agrees
not to resell the medicine for less than a
certain price, the Supreme Court OF
Massachusetts, In the case of Garst VS..
HaIl & Lyon Co. (61 y. E. Rep, 2lSD
holds that the restriction is only binding
on the purchaser from the manufacturer,
and the latter cannot enjoin a purchaser
from such purchaser selling for i less
price. 20 say that this contract is at
tacLed to the property" said the court,
land follows it through successive sales,
which severally pass title, is very differ
eEt proposition from saying the contract
can be enforced only against the con-
tracing rarity We know of no authority.
nSr of any sound principle, which viii
justify US in so holding
Where receiver deposits in bank
money acquired by sale of personally in
his hands. the Supreme Court of Massa-
chusetts, in the case of City National
Bank VS. Charles Baker Company (61 N.
E Rep, 22Sl, holds that the corporation
Of which he is receiver remains the legal
owner of the fund and hence the re-
ceiyer is not liable to be taxed as the
owner OF the deposit
In an action for personal injuries
caused by an explosion while mining the
Appellate Court of Indiana in the case
of Eureka Block Coal Company vs.. Wells
(61 y. z. Rep, 2S6), holds that the prox-
innate cause 81 the injury was the negli-
genoe of the boss in permitting the wall
to become 50 thin that it could not with
stand the force of an explosion. and il
permitting a charge to be placed where
he was bound to know that il would blow
through and injure anyone near that
point.
4 person whcse father is a white man
and uaturalized citizen is not an in
dian for the purpose Of taxation, holds
Judge Knowles. of the United States Dis
trict Court. in the case Of United States
vs. Higgins q1O Fed. Rep. eO9l. al
though his mother is a haIf-bree In
dian. and when he is II years old goes
81 With. her children to an Indian reserva-
rion. and is admitted as a member OF a
tribe. aud thereafter lives on the reserya-
ticn.
The owner cannot recover damages for
injuries to his property interfering with
,ceess thereto from the street. in conse-
luence of lowering Of the street and side
walk by the city. holds the Supreme Court
II Illinois in The case Of City of Chicago
vs.. Jackson GA chi. s. n, ssl. The court
held that the damage to the PLAINTIFFS
property was caused by the lawful exer-
Use of the power delegated to the city
to secure a safe highway to the citizens
Of the State and legitimate exercise OF
he police power. for which no liability
attached to the defendant.
NOT TO BE GRANTED LEAVE.
street Crossing Policemen
Andrew p Duvau. the Attorney for the
I,f-+-ict Yesterday handed to the Com