Wallowa chieftain. [volume] (Joseph, Union County, Or.) 1884-1909, 1902-10-16
LATE JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

LATE JUDICIAL DECISIONS.
The right OF a municipality to reas.
sesS the cost Of a street improvement
upon abutting property after an assess
ment is set aside, as in contravention
Of the charter, is held. I'm Green VS.. It'd
ball Wash. - L. Il. A., SD TO be
within a covenant against ncum-
brances, in a conveyance OF the proper.
ty made subsequent to the improve
ment
A homestead exemption is held, in
Lyons VS.. Andry la, 80 l.. Il. A., 12n
net TO be lost by failure TO actually re-
side upon the property, where the
homesteader left the place because his
house was blown down by storm
and lived with a son at short dis
tance. but visited his place every day,
and continued to cultivate garden truck
upon it by which he earned his living.
There must be something beyond
mere guess on the part of the miner
to authorize him TO make a location
ground, holds the Supreme Court of
Utah, in the case of Copper Globe Min
ing Company VS.. Altman ga Pac. Rep.
1919. such as the discovery Of the pres
ence of precious metals at the place
where the notice is posted. or in such
proximity to it as to Justify Il reason
able belief in the existence of a lode
there.
Even at this day the courts are cali
ed upon to decide questions arising out
of slavery, as appears from a recent
decision of the Supreme judicial Court
of Massachusetts in the case of Irving
VS.. Ford go y. L. Rep, 1922, in which
the legitimacy of a child of a slave
marriage was involved. The parents
Of the child, now advanced in years,
were at the time of his birth slaves in
Virginia. In 1916, prior to his birth,
by consent of their owners. they went
through form of marriage in the pres
ence of the master of one of them. and
afterward lived together for eight
years. In 1884 the father escaped to
Massachusetts, and there, in 1886, mar
ried another woman, by whom lie had
a son and daugher He lived with this
woman until his death, in 1898. After
the war the son born in Virginia by
the first marriage was recognized by
his father as his son. On the death OF
the father the son by the second mar
rlage was appointed administrator,
whereupon the son by the first mar
rlage asked to have him removed OH
the ground that he was not a lawful
child, but that he, the son of the first
marriage, was the lawful son of the
deceased. 1t was contended by the
Massachusetts son that the son born
of the slave marriage in Virginia was
illegitimate because in that State / lr-
riages between slaves had no legal eff
feet; but this contention was answered
by stating that the statute passed in
Virginia after the war legitimutizing
slave marriages was sufficient to make
the Virginia son legitimate The court
escaped from the embarrassing posi-
tiOn of declaring either of the contest
ants illegitimate by holding that even
though the Virginia son We're made
Legitimate by statute, it did not follow
as a consequence that the Massachu-
setts marriage was void and the chill.
dren of itNillegltimate; that as the pc.
tition for removal goes on the single
ground that the Virginia son is the
only legitimate child, sufficient case
for removal has not been made Oh that
ground. The court said they would
leave the question as to whether the
Virginia son was entitled TO share in
the distribution of the estate unde,
cided.