Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-16
q. s. SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN AT TO-
DAYS SESSION.

Supreme Court of the United States against
them, the opinion being rendered by JUS
| tice Holmes. This was criminal proceed
ing against the four men. all of them MEM
bers OF one family residing in Lowndes
county. Ga. on charge Of numbering two
infant members of family named Carter.
with which family the Rawlings had a
feud. 1t is charged that they employed a
negro named Moore to murder the entire
Carter family and that some of the mem
bers OF the Rawlings family accomp anied
him to the Carter residence on the night
CT the tragedy BY making a noise they
attracted a small boy and his young sister
outside the house and then shot them down.
Other members of the family refused to
come out and therefore escaped On trial
all of the members of the Rawlings fam
lily whose names are given except Leonard
were found guilty of murder, and he re-
ceived a sentence of life imprisonment
The supreme court of Georgia affirmed the
verdict of the trial court, and the case
on the allegation of discrimination in Sc
lecting the trial jury in that all profess
sional men We're excluded. The court held
that the men had not been deprived OF
any constitutional right and sustained the
decisions of the state courts.
State Law Sustained.
In the case of Frederick st. John agt
Supreme Court of the United States today
sustained the New York state law impos-
ing a penalty for selling impure or adul-
terated milk. st. John was a non-produc-
ing milk dealer in Buffalo and was twice
fined for violating the law. The fines
amo united TO 500, and this action was b.
gun in the local state courts to collect
the amount of the fine. The trial court al
lowed S10o. and the verdict was sustained
by the New York court of appeals. ".
John brought the case to this court on the
question of the constltutionality of the la "
The opinion was delivered by Justice Nc
kenna
A Divorce Decision.
In an opinion by Justice White the SUI
preme Court of the United States today
decided the case of John W. Haddock
against Harriet Haddock, a divorce pro-
ceeding instituted in the courts of New
York city. in favor of the woman. The
Haddocks were married in 1868 and the
husband claimed to have been an unwilling
participant in the ceremony. He says in
his answer to the woman'S complaint that
he left her Immediately after the marriage
rites were performed, and during all the
time that has interviewed has seen her only
three times. In 1881 he secured divorce
in the state of Connecticut, where he then
resided, and in 1882 was married there to
another woman. The New York supreme
court held the second marriage ceremony
to be Illegal. decreed the first wife to be
still the legal wife and directed Haddock
to pay her annuity of $3.50. THAT find
ing was sustained by today's decision,
which held that Mrs. Haddock was with
out the jurisdiction of the Connecticut
court.
Justice White in deciding the case laid
down the general principle that state III
which only one party to divorce proceed
ing resides has no right to dissolve mar
rage tie which all other states must re-
spect. Justices Harlan. Brewer and Brown
united in dissenting opinion. which was
delivered by Justice Brown. they took the
position that the Connecticut divorce pro-
ceeding was regular and is entitled 10 due
credence in other states.
Justice Brown declared in his opinion
that the court had taken backward step
in this decision.
Justice Holmes also dissented from the
decision of the court, but delivered an indie
pendent opinion. He said the result of the
decision would be to ilegitimatize many
children, but added that he would not go
so far as to predict that civilization would
come to an end whatever the conclusion In
the case.
In Favor Of Railroad.
Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of
the United States today announced the
opinion of that court in the case of Perry
F. Powers. auditor-general of the state of
Michigan, agt. the Detroit, Grand Haven
and Milwaukee Railway Company.
line railway company Drought IHlS suit
in the circuit court of the United States
for the western district of Michigan to re-
strain the enforcement against 1t of the
recent railroad tax law of that state. whose
validity was sustained in the cases decided
two weeks ago. In this case the railroad
company made the contention that under
Its charter it is not subject to the law of
1901. providing for an ad valorem tax in
the state. The railroad charter provided
for an annual tax of per cent of the cap
ital stock Of the company and under the
provision the company rendered $25. 900 as
its taxes for the year 1902 The state au-
thorities refused to accept this sum and
demanded S102. 600, which would have been
the amount due under the general law. The
circuit court decided in favor of the rail-
road company, holding that its charter is
still operative. and the decision was af-
frmed on the ground that section of the
act of 155 created a contract which limited
the power of the state in respect to the
matter Of taxation.
To Adjourn May %.
Chief Justice Fuller today announced IN
the Supreme Court of the United States
that the court would adjourn for the term
on Nav % In the meantime the call of