The Washington times., 1902-02-24
LEGAL DECISIONS OF INTEREST
TO LAWYER AND LAYMAN

man brought an action for false i'm
prisonment against railroad company in
Pennsylvania because the railroad COM
pany, after injuring his seventeen-year
old son in an accident. took him to a hos
pital against the boys wish and over his
protest. On the trial of the case the court
directed a verdict for the railroad COM
pany, and on appeal the Supreme Court
sustained the judgment. In their opinion
the court said that the crew of the train
in doing what they did were endeavoring
to act the part of the Good Samaritan
and that they (the courD did not see how
a jury could be allowed to find otherwise
from the evidence tOllet VS.. Pittsburg and
Columbus Railway Company. so All. Rep.
101D. This is a companion case to that of
Hoffman VS.. Eppers al Wis, 25D. decided
by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
where the court held that an action of
assault and battery did not lie against a
man who as a friendly act aroused an
other from a drunken stupor and en-
deavored to assist him to a court where
he had been summoned as a witness.
Not Competent Evidence.
Where a letter is illegally taken under
a search warrant, the Supreme Court of
Vermont. in the case of State VS.. Sal
mon $50 Att. Rep. 1093), holds that it is
inadmissible in the prosecution for lar
ceny of the person from whom it was
taken. as the rule that the court will take
no notice of how paper offered in evil
dence is obtained does not apply when
unlawful search and seizure given by the
declaration of right is invoked. The court
further held that the letter in this case
was inadmissible under the clause of the
Constitution which protects men from
being compelled to give evidence against
himself. THE seizure of a persons pri-
vate papers," said the court, Ito be used
in evidence against him is equivalent to
compelling him to be witness against
himself and, in a prosecution for crime.
is within the constitutional prohibition"
Railroad Is Liable.
Where railroad engineer blows off
steam from his engine in order to scare
children. and a child is frightened so
that it falls while running, and breaks
leg, the Supreme Court OF Iowa, in the
case of Alseyer VS.. Minneapolis and c.
Railway Company tSS y. w. Rep, SAD,
holds that the railroad company is liable
in damages.
Suit was brought in Mississippi against
a publishing company. on the grouNl that
the company was an unlawful trust and
combine" because of the fact that i- had
entered into a contract with the SSite to
sell school books below the normal cost
of production and that the design of this
was to destroy competition aAd thus to
effect a monopoly. On appeal the SD
preme Court held that the anti trust
laws do not apply to the State, or any of
its statutory agencies. in making such
contracts although their bids may be be-
low the normal cost OF production. tB. F.
Johnson Publishing Company VS.. Mills,
81 So. Rep, 101)
Held to BE Larceny.
Where the possession Of property is
obtained by a person by means of a trick
or artifice with the intention of appro-
priating it, the Cour. OF Appeals of New
York in the case o. People VS.. Miller t62
" E. Rep, 41S) held that the person SO
obtaining the property is guilty OF lar
ceny.
Twenty-Five hundred dollars damages
for the loss of a left eye is held not to be
excessive by the Appellate Court of In
diana in the case of Van Camp Hardware
and Iron Company VS.. O'Brien t62 y. E.
Rep. 46D.
Not Liable for judicial Act.
Judge of court of superior or gen.
eral jurisdiction is not liable to a civil
action for judicial act, holds Judge
Dallas of the United States Circuit Court
of Pennsylvania. in the case of English VS..
Ralston (1l2 Fed. Rep, 2T2), and pro-
hibition by such judge OF the issuance OF
a COPY OF any of the courts records or
files Is a judicial act which affords no
ground for an action for damages, what
ever may be averred as to his motive or
design in such action.
Imported OIeo Is Exempt.
A statute prohibiting the sale of oleo-
margarine made in imitation of yellow
butter is held by the Court of Appeals
of MARYLAND. in the case of McAllister
VS.. State $50 All. Rep, i046) to be void
in so far as it is construed TO prohibit
having in possession and sale in the State
of oleomargarine in the original packages
made in another State.
Liable for Husbands Debts.
Where the wife's success in business
was due to the skill and industry OF her
husband, who conducted her business rs
her agent. the Court of Appeals of Ken
tuckv in the case of Blackburn VS..
THOMPSON C66 6. W. Rep, 81, holds that
real estate purchased with the pronts OF
the business was subject to the husband S