Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-06-04
$lmportant Decisions !
DRAINAGE CANAL CASE.


The federal supreme court has re-
Gently held that the discharge into the
Mississippi river thru an artificial
canal, of the sewage of Chicago, miXea
! with a large volume of pure water
from Lake Michigan, would not be
enjoined on complaint Of the state of
Missouri that the result of such action
was to poison the water supply of Its
inhabitants, where the evidence, tho
disclosing an increase in the deaths
from typhoid fever in ST. Louis. left
it doubtful whether the typhoid bacillus
could and did survive the journey and
reach the intake of st. Louis in the
Mississippi, and showed other possible
sources of infection in the discharge
Of sewage above the st. Louis intake
| from other towns and cities, some of
Which were situated in Missouri.
! Missouri VS.. Illinois, 26 Sup. CT. Rep.
26S
ORAL TESTIMONY BY ATTORNEY.
In the case of NJ. & K. Telephone Co.
VS. Vandervort, ~ Pac. III, it was
held that an oral admission of ma
terial fact, made by an attorney in his
opening statement to the jury, may be
proved on subsequent trial of the
same cause, if it appears to have been
distinctly and formally made. and in
| tended as a general admission of such
| fact. The court said: "Objection was
made to the reception of testimony of
an opening statement made by counsel
! for the company on former trial of
| the case. In the statement was an adj
mission Of material fact as to the ac-
ton of The telephone company in the
premises. From a reading of the rec
ord the admission appears to have been
distinctly and formally made. In Lind
say VS.. Railroad Company. AZ kas. 432.
% Pac. POI, it was held that the court
is warranted in acting on the admis-
| sion of a party made in the opening
statement of a case to the court and
jury. and might make final dispo-
| sition of the case where such state
ment absolutely precluded recovery
by him. An incidental remark of
counsel as to facts which he expected
| to prove. and which did not amount to
A distinct and formal admission, would
ordinarily not be binding on such par
| ty nor relieve the other of the burden OF
! proving the fact; but we cannot say
that the admission in question falls
within that class The fact that admis-
sion was made on former hearing
did not of itself make it admissible.
In Railroad Company VS.. Shoup, %
kas. 1874, it was expressly determined
| that an oral admission of a fact by an
attorney Curing the trial of a case
might b proved on a subsequent trial
of the same cause, and If it appeared
| to have been intended as general
admission of the fact it would be as
binding as If 1t were made on the sub
| sequent trial.
| CONVICT LABOR.
The case of State VS.. Henry, 40 So.
| Rep. 1872 was an action which arose
out of contract between the board of
control of the state prison and the
owners of plantation, by which the
board agreed to work the plantation
with convict labor and to pay the own
er all above $4,000 per year realized
from crops the owner guaranteeing
| that the crops should amount in value
to $4,000. 1t was stipulated that the
board OF control should have absolute
authority over the labor and that the
| owner should furnish teams and i'm
Elements for working the plantation.
/
ion in the state constitution forbidding
the hiring or leasing of convicts, but
authorizing their employment on pub
| lie works and on state farms, does not
require that the farms be owned by the
state, and it is within the power of the
| legislature to work convicts on leased
| lands.
| ATTEMPTS AT SUICIDE.
4
j. So Att. Rep. a. it was held by the
supreme court of New Jersey that in
| that state an attempt at suicide is an
indictable offense, tho there is no in
| dependent enactment making it a
| crime.
TREASURE TROVE = PROPERTY
1MBEDDED IN THE SOIL.
TIL plaintiff, being in possession of
defendants premises under lease,
while cutting wood thereon, discovered
a rich speciment of gold bearing quartz
| lying on the top of the ground. On
| further examination he found others
extending to a depth of ten or twelve
inches in all weighing about TN
| pounds. There We're no indications
present of any natural ledge or lode of
| gold-bearng or other quartz in place,
or Of any pocket or placer or other
natural deposit. Plaintiff also testified
touching the ore that it had the APP
pearance Of having been placed there
at some time long ago." The evidence
| further showed that two tress stand
ing nearest the place of discovery bore
marks, consisting of two or more
blazes, as if made with an an, and
indications having the appearance of
being struck with a hammer or some
blunt instrument Another witness
| testified that he found evidence Of
some kind of old cloth where the ore
was found. Plaintiff disposed of part
was found. Plaintiff disposed of part of
the ore, estimated as being half of it in
value, and delivered the remaining
quartz to defendant. He now brings
trover for THE quartz thus delivered, al
leging that it was obtained from him
thru duress and threats of arrest and
imprisonment and false and fraudulent
representations. The defendant an
swered that the specimens were his
property by reason of having been ex-
tracted from his land Held: That gold
bearing quartz rock found beneath the
surface of the earth is not lost or
abandoned property, Notwithstanding
that there is evidence that it was at
one time contained in bag, but must
be classed as property imbedded in
the soil and not of such character as to
constitute treasure trove; and the til