Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1903-01-08
LATE JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

The right of 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, in Green VS.. lid
ball Wash, 90 l.. Il. A., 500 to he
within covenant against incum'
brances, in a conveyance of the proper
ty made subsequent to the improve
ment.
A homestead exemption is held, IL
Lyons VS.. Andry la, 80 l.. X. A, 12N
not to be lost by failure to actually re-
side upon the property where the
homesteader left the place because hin
house was blown down by a Storm
and lived with son at short dig
lance. 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
which will exclude others from the
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 rs to justify a reason
able belief in the existence of lode
there.
Even at this day the courts are call
ed upon to decide questions arising out
of slavery, as appears from recent
decision of the Supreme judicial Court
Of Massachusetts in the case of Irving
vs. Ford GO n. Il. Rep. 1922, in which
the legitimacy Of a child of 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
ence of the master of one Of them, and
afterward lived together for eight
years. In 1854 the father escaped to
Massachusetts. and there. in 1856. mar.
ried another woman. by whom he 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
riage was appointed administrator,
whereupon the son by the first mar
vio o,1, n1 To h., inn M,
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 mar
riages between slaves had no legal eff
feet but this contention was answered
by stating that the statute passed in
Virginia after the war legitimatiZing
slave marriages was sufficient to make
the Virginia son legitimate. The court
escaped from the embarrassing posi-
ton of declaring either of the contest
ants illegitimate by holding that even
though the Virginia son were made
legitimate by statute, 1t did not follow
as consequence that the Massachu-
sets marriage was void and the chill.
dren of it illegitimate; that as the pc.
ttion for removal goes on the single
! ground that the Virginia son is the
| only legitimate child, sufficient case
! for removal has not been made on 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.