Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-12-22
SSD0D41114D13@ A31@1000V~WZ
{lmportant Decisionsi

e>>>ee>>>>>>e&Se>>e~>>>>e>
DEATH SENTENCE FOR LIFE
CONVICT-In Brown VS.. State, %
Southwestern Reporter, 1039,sth Court
of Criminal Appeals OF Texas passes
upon the question as to whether one
who has been previously convicted OF
murder and Is serving life sentence
may be tried and sentenced to death Tor
a subsequent murder. While no cases
were cited by the court, it is held that
the second conviction is not barred by
the first, and that the death sentence
may be put into effect Immediately.
The question has been passed upon IN
several other states, the holding uni
formly being in agreement with this
opinion of the Texas court.
STEALING GAS-An unusual pros
ecution for larceny arises In Woods VS..
People, rs Northeastern Reporter, 60I,
where the supreme court Of Illinois
holds that the occupant Of building,
who removes the meters and substitutes
rubber hose connections, Is guilty of
grand larceny under the statute defin-
lItS l0ICSIy dS 1ClOHlOuSAy lttNAPS SAAS
personal goods Of another. The de-
PENDANTS plan was to remove the meter
as soon as the gas inspector had read
it, and connect the pipes by means of
rubber hose this connection being left
in place until near the time for the re-
appearance of the gas pan, when 1T
was removed and the meters replaced.
1t was also held in this case that in
ascertaining whether the value of the
gas taken was sufficient to make the
offense grand larceny, the value OF the
gas consumed upon number of con-
secutive days should be added together.
and that the gas taken on each separate
day did not constitute separate Of
Tense. 1t was further held that in as
pertaining the value, the jury should
be guided by the selling price and not
by the cost price Of gas.
CONSP1RACY-R1GHT TO EX-
cLUDE PERSON FROM THEATERS
Considerable attention has been at
tracted to the case Of People ex rel.
Burnham VS.. Flynn, 100 New York
Supplement, 81, owing to the fact that
the plaintiff was the dramatic critic of
prominent paper The basis of the
action is that the defendants conspired
to prevent the plaintiff from exercising
q lawful trade or calling, Because of
criticisms made of the plays given at
the various theaters, the defendants
had given instructions that the critic
should not be admitted, and he had
been forcibly prevented from entering
after purchasing a ticket. The SUI
preme court of New York refers to the
familiar doctrine that the conducting
of a theater is a private enterprise, and
latien, the proprietor has the right to
say who shall enter. Under this doc
trine the court states that the agree
nlent to exclude the critic was not an
unlawful one, and that If his presence
was distasteful or injurious to their
business the proprietors had the lawful
right to agree to exclude him.
CARRIERS = INJURIES = PROxI-
NATE CAUSE-An interesting deci-
sion ON proximate cause is rendered by
the supreme court of Colorado In Sny-
de. VS.. Colorado Springs g. Cripple
Creek District Ry. Co., S. Pacific Re-
porter, CSC. A passenger on crowded
car was standing on the platform with
other passengers, some of whom were
on the steps below. The conductor, in
pushing his way thru the crowd of
passengers, pressed the plaintiff against
one who became angry, and pushed the
plaintiff with such force that he was
thrown from the car, passing over the
heads of passengers standing on the
lower steps. The court says that the
proximate cause of the accident was the
action of the passenger who pushed the
plaintiff, and cites its previous defin-
ition of proximate cause as that which
in natural and continued sequence, UNI
broken by any efficient intervening
cause, produced the result complained
Of, and without which the result could
not have occurred Under this doctrine
the company was held not to be liable.
CE-INTERSTATE COM
MERCE-REGULAT OFFREIGHT
RATES-A corporation owning cars in
tended for the transportation of live
stock indiscriminately on railroads
made payments to shippers in order to
~ SIAIctG CAlC USE VI GllGlt CStI q RAE
corporation made no contracts with
shippers for the use of the cars, but
merely received mileage from the var
ious railroads. The question as to
whether the federal act of February -,
1903, was violated by such transactions
was brought before the United States
circuit court for the Northern District
of Illinois in the case of Interstate
Commerce Commission vs. Reichmann,
145 Federal Reporter, 2se, and that
court holds, in consideration Of the com
ditions which the statute was desig-
mated to remedy. that freight rates
must be construed as meaning the net
cost to the shipper, and that the nrac-
tice under consideration was q violation
of the statute.