The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-28
TIP AGAINST TT.

uH A9A1MGI 1T.
 All of us are, or shouh be, more oI less familiar with that famous case de- cided by Aolomon. where two women and a baby wereaffected. Many of us, too have read the Eastern folklore stories where the wise cadi always decided a case exactly right. The case decided by Solomon. and those of the wise Arabian or Persian judges were hard ones, put sometimes questions come, ,sbefore modern courts and judges which are scarcely less puzzling and difficult of solution.
 A recent example is given of what may come up to tangle justice in modern days. On one of the Rhine steamers cook, or kitchen maid flew into violent rage, as women sometimes do, and to vent her extra temper she gathered up ali the dishes and cooking utensils that hal been sent her to be cleaned and heaved them overheard in a bunch. Of course this was very wrong and to pun isa her the owners of the scattered im- pIements had her hauled np before the court, charged with stealirg. The judge very properly, it seems to us. held that the charge could not be sustained. She had not carried of the thirgs, converted them to her owss use, nor had she sold or pawned them. In short, the wise judge declared that she h;id not stolen anything. s.
 Then the owners tried another tack and had her charged with injuring or damaging their property, but right there they butted against another. wall. The things were all in the bottom sof the river, and could not be produced. In order to convict her on the charge thse prosecutor must bring to the court some evidence that the articles were damaged and how could that be done, when he neither knew where they were nor what had been done to them? For aM the court knew, or could know, the plates and things were In better condition than when they were in the steameTs kitchen. Plainly, the charge was not proven and tho court so decided.
 Then the plaintiffs appealedvto a high CT court, but the combination failed to work again. That court decid ed with the lower tribunal that the charge of theft didn't have a leg to stand oia, and that the charge of damaged property was not sustained. This court sustain ed the oth- ee, so far as the two definite charges went but it went little fsrther. It held that the girl had evidently violated some, law or statute or something, and that she should be punisheds for 1t, or German justice would have ;a big hole punched in 1t. Plainly the girh had done something she shouldn't do, end equally plainly the credit of the law demanded that she be convicted and punished for it. whatever 1t was, so the judge of the higher court remanded the whole busi- ness to the lower tribunal wi th instruc- tions to find out what the accused was guilty of and fix her punishment
 There the matter stands. at last &C., counts. and we are naturally curious to know what will come next. Pelthaps they pI opose to fish all the dishes from the bottom of the river to ascertain if any damage has been done. But then her attorney, If she has one. will :tet up the plea that the damage was dorB+ by those who grappled and brought up the things, and that will set the court back again. Then he may also plead that any dam- age shown might have been done by the fishes and things, and there would be another bluff. We are bound to con- clude that the court is up against 1t good and hard Somebody must be Tunished for doing something. that's pAkn, but who and for what? is the point.