The Nezperce herald. (Nezperce, Idaho) 1900-1957, 1905-05-04
JUDICIAL pscls,oNa

The advisability Of Documentary svi'
dsncs tending to establish the guilt Of
an accused OF the offenss charged Il
held, IN Adams VI. New York. advance
sheets U. s. 1908. p. 372. to be affected
by the fact that It 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. ". 63 L. X. A. 1877. not to
be violated by 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
ibllity. II denied In Brink vs.. Stratton
IN. ". 63 l.. Il. A. 1872. where the
constitution provides that no person
shall be incompetent to be a 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. 5. 1903. 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 10 assist a
femalepassenger who Is partially blind.
In allghting from the train at her des-
Is held. In Southern Railway
Company vs.. Hobbs tGa.l. IS L. r. A.
y. not TO amount to an undertaking
,n the part OF the conductor 10 enter
the car In which the passenger Is rid
ng. assume charge OF her bundles and
'~VAA htA AAOln Aft 1t4l WV u tnt AA,4t |
md out upon the platform. unless the
passenger Is 80 helpless as 10 require
his extraordinary attention aud the
CONDUCTOR has notice that such Is ths
ase.
The right 10 cross examine hand.
writing experts In order 10 prove their
bility Is sustained in Hoas vs.. Wright
y. ~. 90 l.. n. A. iG3. and IL is held
0 be error TO strike out an admission
y such an expert that hs had been
iistaken as to signatures which he had
ronounced genuine. although the trial
ldge might. In his discretion. have ex.
luded An effort TO secure such admis
Ion In the first INSTANCE. The othe-
uthorities on examination OF witness
) to handwriting by comparison ara
plated and reviewed In a note TO this
Use. {
A combination prohibited by the act
Congress OF July 2. 1890. 10 held. 10 q
7. W. Montague & Co. VS. Lowry O.. .
A.. 9th O., 63. L. H. A. IS. affirmed !
iyancc sheets U. s.. 1908. o. 807. TO
} constituted by an association TO I
iits all acceptable dealers engaged {
certain business In a certain city
I'd within 200 miles therefron aud nil u
merican manufacturers OF their sup =
les. the rules OF which exclude IN
ceptable persons from membership "
ID prohibit their purchasing supplies o
less than list prices. which are more 4
an double what member. OF the as.o- v
,tiou pay. y