Alaska sentinel., 1903-01-22
LATE JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

The right of municipality to reas- sess the cost of ! street improvement upon abutting prtperty after an assess ment is set asidt, as In cOntrave vention of the charter. is held, in Green ys lid ball Wash, 55 L. R. A., S19l to be within a covenant against incum- brances, in a conveyance of the proper ty made subsequent to the impro,a ment.
 A homestead exemption Is held. i, Lyons ys. Andry La. 55 L. R. A, I2D not 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 a storm. and lived with a son at a 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 a mere guess on the part of the miner to authorize him to make a location which will exclude others from tie ground. holds the Supreme Court of Utah, in the case of Copper Globe Min ing Company ys. Altman 64 Pac. Rep. 1019J, such as the discovery of the pres ence of precious metals at the place where the notice is posted, or in such proximity to ii as to justify reason able belief in the existence of a 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 ,n the case of Irving ys. Ford t6O N. E. Rep, 492). in which 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 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 ot the father the son by the second mar riage was appointed administrators, whereupon the son by the first mar riage asked to have him removed oil 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. It 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 ef- 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- tion 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 a consequence that the Massachu- sets marriage was void and the Chil- dren of it illegitimate; that as the pe- tition for removal goes on the single ground that the Virginia son is the l only legitimate child, a sufficient case for removal has not been made on that ground. The court said they would leave the question as to whether the 1 Virginia son was entitled to share in
 the distribution of the estate unde- cided.