The Washington times., 1902-03-17
False Pretences.

False PretenceS-
A man falsely represented to the own
er OF a residence that he owned GER
tain lots situated near the residence.
and that he would erect soap fac
tory thereon, thereby inducing the resi-
dence owner to buy the lots. At the
time of the payment of the considera-
ton for the lots the man had ac-
quired a good title and conveyed ii to
the purchaser. A criminal action was
brought against the man by the residence
owner for obtaining money by false
pretences. and the jury found him guilty
of the offence charged On appeal, the
Court of Appeals New York; reversed
the Judgment of conviction and granted a
new trial. on the ground that il the pur-
chaser got good title, he obtained ev-
erything he contracted for, and hence
there was no larceny by false pretences
or otherwise. The court said that the
defendant and his associates may have
been guilty of a conspiracy, but that they
could not be held to be guilty of the
crime of grand larceny by false pre-
tences. People VS.. Wheeler, 62 n. E.
Rep, 5T3.)
Precaution Is Assumed.
A traveller upon a public city street.
passing in front of an engine fired up and
manned. standing without the bounds of
the highway. but so near it that from
the cab windows the street and objects
within it can be plainly seen, is held by
the Supreme Court of Kansas, in the
case OF st. Louis and Santa Fe Railway
Company VS. Dawson t67 Pac. Rep. 521),
n ffrat
gineer will not. without warning, start his
locomotive and run over her upon the
street before she can. while proceeding
with haste and in the exercise of ordinary
care and caution, cross the tracks upon
which the engine is standing when she
makes the attempt to do SO.
Is Not SANDER.
Calling man thief does not neces-
sarily impute to him either the crime of
larceny or any other criminal offence,
and rs not a slander per Sc, holds the Su-
prene Court of Wisconsin in the case of
Eagan VS.. Semrad (SS N. W. Rep. 9Os).
State Controls Improvements.
The opening and improvement of streets
and highways is matter of concern to
the whole people Of the State, and over
which the State has paramount authority,
holds the Supreme Court of Kansas in
the case OF State VS.. Atkin (67 Pac Rep.
5l9.) The obligation to lay out and i'm
prove highways is imposed upon the State
in its general capacity, and the Legisla-
ture may control the work necessary in
performing this public duty by whstso-
ever agency may be employed in carrying
it out
Insanity Cause for Divorce.
A suite for divorce NAV be maintained
against an insane person for desertion,
where such desertion continued for a year
before he became insane, provided there
is no reasonable probability of his recov-
cry, holds the Supreme Court of Califor-
MIA in the case of Harrigan vs.. Harrigan
t67 Pac. Rep, 506).
Duty of Succeeding Contractor.
Where contract to construct a
building according to certain plans and
specifications was abandoned by the con-
tractor when the work was only partially
ompleted, and another contractor was en-
gagged to finish the work according to the
original plans and specifications, the Su-
preme Court of California in the case of
Long Beach City School Dist. VS.. Dodge
t6I Pac. Rep, 499) holds that the latter
contractor was bound to correct without
extra cost such defects in the work and
formerly employed as were ap- |
parent to competent and careful observ- |
er.
Final Ruling in Land Case.
The final decision of the department Of |
ficers of the Land Department of the Gen. !
eral Government in a contest case involv- |
ing the right of the parties thereto to a |
portion of the public domain, is held by /
the Supreme Court of Kansas. in the case |
of Missouri. etc. Company ys. Pratt (67 |
Pac. Rep. 464). to be final and conclusive !
in the court and is not open to collateral |
attack. and may not be re-examined ex- |
rept in proper direct proceeding insti- |
tuted against the successful party.
Salary Only Incidental
A public officer is entitled to his salary /
as an incident to the office. and not by |
force of any contract, holds the Supreme |
Court of Kansas in the case of Fem VS.. |
Beeler t6T Pac. Rep, 46D. and 1t is no |
defence to an action for salary that the !
person suing earned more than the |
amount of the same in another en- |
ployment during the time the possess |
ion Of the office was withheld from him.
Danger Not in the Risk.
A policy of insurance which indemnified |
he insured against all such immediate |
loss or damage sustained by the assured |
IS may occur by ''tornadoes. cyclones. |
md windstorms," 3" and which provides that /
he insurance company shall not be liable
'or any loss or damage occasioned by
nail. is held by the Supreme Court of
Kansas, in the case of Hartford Fire
insurance Company VS.. Nelson (67 Pac.
Rep. 440), not to cover loss occasioned
,y the breaking OF windows by hail, al
hough such loss would not have occurred
lad not the hail been driven against the
windows by high wind.