The Washington times., 1901-08-31
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.
In Mississippi there is a direc, conflict
between the Supreme Court and the Fed
| eral Court OF that State as to whether
certain building and loan contracts are
| usGrious and Illegal The Supreme Court
holds the contracts are void while in the
| Federal Court they are declared to be
| valid.
| If borrower from a building and loan
| association has a contract for 81 900 or
| over tthe amount necessary to give the
| Federal Court jurisdiction) he is brought
| into the Federal Court and his contract
is enforced legal, but II his contract
is for less than 5000 the State courts take
! jurisdiction ana annui his contract on
4 TIE ground that IL is uSurious. The de-
cision of the Supreme Court was rendered
| IN the recent case of Shannon VS.. Georgia
state kullding and Loan Association. and
| that OF the Federal Court. which was an
| nounced shortly afterward. was in the
| case OF Manship vs.. New South Building
| ana Loan Association. In the Shannon
| case the Supreme Court held: First, that
| "A contract payable on It's face in Georgia.
| but with a stipulation making 1t payable
| IN effect IN Mississippi. at the option Of
| the borrower. and where. in fact all the
payments were made to the local agent of
| the association. is Mississippi contract
and governed by the usury laws OF the
| State; second. that foreign building and
| loan association embarking in a local
business in Mississippi cannot by contract
| stipulations evade the usury laws of the
| State; third, a stipulation of the contract
| that after the debt had all been paid, with
| usiIrious interest, the association would
| adjust the matter so as to avoid usury.
| does not relieve the contract of Its usu-
| rious character. for the usury would be
| collected and retained If the debt was
| paid before maturity, on surrender of
| the stock, which the borrower could do
| at his option under the contract; fourth.
| in such contract all of the interest is
| forfeited and all partial payments, wheth-
| er made on interest, premium. or stocks.
are to be credited to the principal OF the
debt.
| The question whether church property.
part of which is a church site, with build
| ings, and another part of a burial ground.
owned, as per deed of record. by an un-
| incorporated religious society. is subject
to partition, at the instance of a minority
| OF the congregation. among those whe at
this time claim membership in the church,
was decided in the negative by the Su-
preme Court OF Louisiana, In the case OF
lie Blanc vs.. Lemaire $50 So. Rep, 15o).
The court held that minority of the
congre CATION, under the case as present.
ed, had no right to break up the church
by forcing the sale Of its property, for
the purpose of partition. the plea Of
being owners in indivision. While they
may have certain property rights In the
Cnurch nOluInES, rney are not COlS10ereu
such owners in indlvision to give them
standing in court to provoke. against
the will of the ma ajority, partition of
that which by common understanding
was intended to remain intact for the
purpose of religious worship.
Where general scheme of land i'm
provement is announced to invited pur-
chasers of lots and part of the promuI-
gated scheme is the declaration that a
/ MI,
general plan shall be devoted to special
purposes. which are held out to be ad-
vantageous to all the lots to be sold. the
Court of Chancery of New Jersey. in the
case of Bridgewater VS.. Ocean City Rail-
road Company, t49 Att Rep, sob, holds
that an implied covenant is thereby en-
tered into by the owner with the lot pur-
chasers that the named portion shall be
devoted to the announced uses. and each
purchaser OF a lot and his grantees may
enforce this covenant against the grantor
or his grantees who purchased with no.
! tice of this implied covenant.
The conviction of a person of a crime
which the Constitution requires should be
tried by a jury of twelve. though nine
jurors concurring might render a verdict.
is not legal conviction, though twelve
jurors were physically present during the
trial. and all concurred in verdict of
guilty, If one of the jurors on the jury
was IN q drunken the
trial. according to the Supreme Court of
Louisiana in the case of State vs.. Ned
$50 So. Rep, 1861 The court said: The
drunken juror in this case was physically
present. but for legal purposes he might
as well have been absent.
Where, on prosecution for forgery.
there was evidence that accused had en-
deavored to collect money from sub
scriber for a newspaper and that he ex-
cd tn fs.lz xx,riff inc
to be executed by the manager of the
newspaper and authorizing accused
to collect for the paper, the Su-
preme Court of Wyoming leslie VS..
state was So Pae Paeper ReP to @ neds that that
to declar,. by words or actions that an
Instrument is genuine, if. in fact. ii is
false. and the defendant knew it. and he
published the same with intent to defraud
the subscriber of the paper, there should
be verdict of guilty
Where the defendant. charged with mur-
der, is destitute and is unable to employ
counsel the court assigns him counsel.
and he has no right to make any sugges-
tion to the court, or to take any part in
the selection but the court should be
left free to act, holds Judge Foster, of
the Court of General Sessions. New York
County. in the case of People vs. Fuller
C1 n. Y. Supp, 4SD. Judge Foster said.
in part:
u he accused in prison. and with a rela-
lively limited acquaintance as to the cap
ability and suitability of counsel. and
oppressed as he is with the gravity of his
situation, is often but poorly able to
choose or recommend The defendant is
wholly free to select his own counsel, but
if the court is to assign. and the State Is
10 pay. then the independent selection by
the court, by removing the temptation,
will prevent the improper solicitation OF
such assignments by means both despic-
able and unprofeSsional. and VIII. at the
same time, permit the assignment in
proper cases of counsel who are eminent.
able, and honorable. If in an isolated
case this rule should possibly work hard
in the end result to the great advantage
of the accused, the community. and the
bar"
In Louisiana a husband cannot sue for
writ Of habeas corpus against his wife
on the ground that she is illegally detain-
ing their minor child. according to the
Supreme Court of Louisiana (Stafe vs.
Michel, 80 So. Rep, 122). as husband and
wife can only bring suits against each
an application in this case is not author
lied by law.
After two findings by juries the same
way on a question of fact, Judge Wheeler,
United States District Court, Southern
district of New York. in the case of Clark
VS.. Barney Dumping Company tl09 Fed.
Rep. 2S5), holds that the verdict will not
be disturbed because the weight of evil
dence seems to the court to be against
such findings.