The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-01-24
RECENT LEGAL OPINIONS.
The Rights of Conspirators.-

The Rights of Conspirators.-
An important point upon which there was
no direct precedent was recently decided
by an English court in the case of Rex VS..
Plummer e Kings Bench, 339), as TO the
right of conspirators. 1t is thus expressed
in the headnote: ION the trial of an indict-
ment charging three persons jointly with
conspiring together. If one pleads guilty
and has judgment passed against him, and
the other two are acquitted, the judgment
passed against the one who pleaded guilty
is bad and cannot stand"
At first sight that seems a very extraor-
binary state of the law. that person may
fenced, and then. because some one else who
was his partner In crime Is lucky enough
upon a plea of not guilty to get acquitted.
the self-confessed criminal is also to go
scot free. The answer Is that there has
been no crime at all unless more than one
person has been concerned in it, and it
makes no difference whether the person
who pleads guilty thought that he was and
that view in lieu of proof.
Contracts of Public Oficers-validity.-
Nearly every State has a statute provid-
ing that a member of the Common Council
of city or village cannot lawfully enter
into a contract with the municipality for
his own benefit, depending upon authority
derived from vote Of such Council In
late case the Supreme Court of Minnesota
holds that where illegal contract has
been entered into between the Common
Council OF village and one of its men,
bers. upon which such member has re-
celved money, ii may be recovered for the
village In suit by taxpayer.-[92 North
western Rep. (Minn., Judge Lovely, $40. ]
Observation-Disclosures of Physical Act
For the purpose of showing the extent
of the plaintiffs injuries, received in a rail-
road collision, he was permitted by the
trial court, In the presence of the jury, to
attempt to drink glass of water and to
attempt to write. his name. Held, that the
admission OF these physical demonstrations
of the alleged inability of the plaintiff
caused by the accident was not error
tClark VS.. Brooklyn Heights Railroad Com
pany, New York Supreme Court. January
1903
Defective Elevator-Excessive Damages
An employee injured by the fall of an ele-
vator had his leg broken in two places his
back seriously injured. and received a great
shock. He was unable to work eight
months later. and il was apparent that he
was permanently Injured Held. that $500
damages was not excessive. His suit for
damages cannot be defeated because he
failed to return TO his employers the money
which he had received for wages and nedi-
cal bills after the accident, where il was
not accepted in compromise of the claim
IN southwestern Rep. (Kentucky, Judge
Paynter), 81
"A Prehensile Court
From the time of the filing of the nett
ton lin bankruptcy here" says the court
In the case of re Elmira Steel Comparv
(lO9 Federal Reporter. ABB. land the order
restraining interference with it, the prop
erty OF this bankrupt was In the prehen
sorry power of this court" ACCORDING 70
Websters Dictionary ''prehensory'' means
prehensile. Under the word '.prehensiIe''
in the Century Dictionary we find the fol-
rowing references: See cut above, porcu-
pine, and cuts at Cebinae. marmose. musk
cavy. oppossum and spider monkey'-TLaw
Notes for January.l