The Kendrick gazette. [volume] (Kendrick, Idaho) 1892-1968, 1905-04-21
JUDICIAL DECiSlON0

The advisability Of documentary evi-
dence tending to establish the guilt Of
an accused Of the offense charged II
held, in Adams vs.. New York, advance
sheets U. s. 1908, p. 372, to be affected
by the fact that 1t was in violation Of
the constitutional prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
The constitutional guaranty Of relig-
lous freedom is held, in People VS..
Pierson IN. W, GO L. r. A. 1877, not to
be violated by a statute requiring the
furnishing of medical attendance to
minors, where the constitution pro-
vides that liberty of conscience shall
not justify practices inconsistent with
the safety of the state.
The right to interrogate witness as
to his belief in Supreme Being who
would punish him for false swearing,
for the purpose of affecting his cred
Utility, Is denied in Brink VS.. Stratton
IN. W, 63 l.. r. A. 1872, where the
constitution provides that no person
shall be incompetent to be witness on
account of his religious belief, and alb
rogates all disqualification from civil
rights because of such belief.
A stipulation in a railway pass that
the company shall not be liable to the
user under any circumstances, wheth-
er of negligence Of agents or otherwise,
for any injury to the person." is held in
Northern Pacific Railway Company VS..
Adams, Advance Sheets U. S. 1908, p.
4OS, to violate no rule of public policy
and to relieve the company from liabil-
ity for personal injuries resulting from
the ordinary negligence of its employees
to one riding on the pass with knowl-
edge of its conditions.
A promise by conductor to assist
female passenger who Is partially blind,
in alighting from the train at her des-
tination, Is held, in Southern Railway
Company VS.. Hobbs (Ga.), SO L. r. A.
6S, not to amount to an undertaking
ON the part of the conductor to enter
the car in which the passenger Is rid
ing, assume charge of her bundles and
escort her from her seat down the aisle
and out upon the platform, unless the
passenger is so helpless as to require
this extraordinary attention and the
conductor has notice that such Is the
case.
The right to cross examine hand
writing experts in order to prove their
ability is sustained in Hoag vs.. Wright
| IN. ", 63 L. r. A. 1853, and 1t ,is held
to be error to strike out an admission
by such an expert that he had been
mistaken as to signatures which he had
pronounced genuine, although the trial
judge might, in his discretion, have ex-
cluded an effort to secure such admis-
sion in the first instance. The other
authorities OIL examination of witness
es to handwriting by comparison are
collatedNfnd reviewed in a note to this
case.r' ="
| "A combination prohibited by the act
lof Congress of July 2, 1890, is held, in
| W. w. Montague & Co. VS.. Lowry e.
C. A., 9th c., 63, L. r. A. So, affirmed
advance sheets U. s., 1908, p. 3O7, to
be constituted by an association to
unite all acceptable Dealers engaged
IN certain business in a certain city
and within zoo miles therefrom and all
American manufacturers of their sup
plies, the rules Of which exclude I'M
acceptable persons from membership
and prohibit their purchasing supplies
at less than list prices, which are more
than double what members of the asso-
citation pay.