The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1904-10-07
POINTS in LAW
culLINcs FROM DECISIONS IN
CASES or INTEREST TO
LAWYERS AND THE PUB.
Lie I'M GENERAL.
Divorce--crueI Treatment.


appeared from the testimony she was
! jealous Of her husband that the de
| fendant il irritable, aad during their
married life the parties have frequent
| ly guarreied, resulting on several oc'
casions in assaults committed on
each ether In these encounters
they have been quite evenly matched,
as one Of tho witnesses testified that
plaintiff told the witness on one occa-
sion, that she thought II l. came
i3gat down to rough and tumble
fight she could lick him." Held, a
aiyorce to plaintiff was properly re-
fused. Jones VS.. jones, II Pac, 13f
| tOre.)
Ccntract.~-Breach.
Defendant agreed to purchase from
the plaintiff a stock Of goods and the
good will of the business, and take
| from plaintiff a lease Of store at O
rental agreed upon II was agreed
that the stock should be Sold out at
such price as defendant should deem
best. until it should be reduced to a
specified value, when the remainder
should be taken by defendant at a
certain per cent of it's value, and that
defendant should pay specified sum
for the good will Of the business. The
stock was so sold, but the defendant
Refused 20 perform further Held.
paintiff had three remedies: First
he could hold the property Fubjcct
to defendants order, and tender a
lease of the store ana sue for the con
tract price: second, he could sell the
rrooorty, including he lease, after
notice, and recover the excess Of the
contract price over the price re-
celyed third he could retain the
property ana recover the excess of
the contract price over the marke.
7aiu1 al the time and place Of doliv
cry. schott V. Stone, n Pac. 1872
(Wash)
carrlera-change in Schedule,
Defendant railroad company pub
lished ana issued a schedule showing
that certain train would run from
certain date. Plaintiff purchac ed .
ticket on the representation Fl tho
agent that she could take The train
Prior to the date the train was
scheduled to DO put on, it was can
celcd, which fact was not known IT,
he agent making the representation
and as a result plaintiff was obliged
% stop over one night at an interme'
liatc point. Held, that defendant
was liable for the penalty provided
for in the statutes of Michigan, for
failure to transport without just OK
cuse. Van Camp VS.. NJ, c. r. II. 10
d. l.. N. 3G3 (Mich)
ailroads-pcrsonaI Injuries.
a pas enger, who had left the train
and entered restaurant en- ferry
Icing informed that his Train was
leaving him attempted to climb or
the steps of 4 moving car, when a
Jerk of the train, oceas!uned by a
Increase Of speed necc sary TO ascend
an incline, oyecbalancei him and he
was struck by some obstruction close
to the car. but necessary in the opor
tior Of The road. Held, that no neg
llgopce was hown ON The part OF ~
Ialroad company Allen ye Ncrthc'n
Pac. ~. a. Pac. 20l tWashD
ords--Nealgerce
rllintiG driving along a higagay
where 1t ran parable |
with railroad track through Il con-
yon. headed IN he direction plaintiff |
was driving, Plaintiff started e
drive along the highway through the
canyon, when the engine, without /
warning, and making no more noise |
than usual or necessary, backed t.
ward him, and on iis approach hh
horses became frightened and he wa.
Injured. l.clI, that there wgs no cyi
icnce OF negligence on tn part Of the
company. Fares w. III
Grande II. r. II PGc go Gitah)
Dentistry Power to Regulate Practice
Defendant was arrested for rractic
ng dentistry without a license, cen
rsry to the dental law of the state OF
California requiring N examination
etc. The law IN question eXompte1
rom It's requireme pcrsons WHO
) ere at the time of its passage en-
gagged in the practice Of dentistry
Defendant made application for a
grit of habeaz corpus claiming .hc
aw was Unconstitutional as heinz
lass legislation. Held. that the ac'
gas constitutional ard was not re
,ugnant to the provisions OF 'he state
md federal constitutions inhibiAng
peci9l and class legi lation and the
-ranting of special privileges anj i'm.
runitie8. Elk parto Whitley, u Plc.
40 (CalD
Sales Implied Contract.
Defendant. a merchan'. by cears .
+ general circulars and advertise ]
aents. solicited generally the ship ]
lent to him Of goods at a stated price I
nd the plaintiff in accordance with
he same. shipped N defendan. 2 q
uantity Of Gro tics Tho defend {
Mt mailed him a statement Showing Z
lat some of the tes hal ben ac"ea- =
"a at o dinerco. price and that 9th ,
FL hal been rejected The fies "a I
.rtod ,r-rrr --r,f returned "a rT4f-FfW ] -