Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-06-25
J Important Decisions{

RIGHT OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS.
The plaintiff was suspended from
school for violating an order of the di-
rectors prohibiting pupils from playing
In such game, and brought an action
of mandamus to compel them to rein
state him. The board demurred to his
petition, and Judgment was rendered
for the defendants, which was sustained
by the supreme court. The court holds
that under a statute authorizing
school directors to make rules and regu-
Iations for the government of pupils.
the board of directors of a high school
has authority to prohibit pupils of the
school from playing foot ball in game
purportng to be played under the aus
pices Of the school, by team purport-
ing to represent the school, altho the
game be not played in school hours or
on or near the school grounds.
kinZer VS.. Directors 105 N. w. Rep.
6S6 Qowa)
WITNESS.
An interesting case on the right
of representatives, officers or en-
ployes of corporation to refuse to
testify on the ground Of self incrim-
ination was very recently handed down
by the United States supreme court
The proceedings originated in a sub
poena duces tecum, issuer April 28,
1905, commanding one Hale to appear
before the grand jury at time and
place named, to testify and give evil
dence in a certain action now pend
ing "** in the circuit court Of the
United States for the southern district
of New York, between the United
States Of America and the American
Tobacco Company and MacAndrews &,
Forbes Co., on the part of the United
States, and that you bring with you
and produce at the time and place
aforesaid certain documents which
are set forth" Petitioner appeared
before the grand jury in obedience to
the subpoena. After stating his resi-
dence, name and the fact that he was
secretary and treasurer of the Mac
Andrews & Forbes Co., he declined to
answer all other questions in regard
to the business of the company, it's
officers, the location of its office, and
it's agreement or arrangements with
other companies. He was thereupon
advised by the assistant district at
torney that this was a proceeding I'M
and commerce against unlawful
ness still persisted in his refusal to
answer all questions. He also de-
clined to produce the papers and doc
uments called for in the subpoena,
because they might tend to incrimin-
ate him. Whereupon the grand jury
reported the matter to the court, and
made a representation that Hale was
in contempt, and that the proper pro-
ceedings should be taken. Thereupon
all the parties appeared before the cir
cult judge, who directed the witness
to answer the questions and produce
the papers. Witness still refused. The
circuit judge thereupon held him to
be in contempt, and committed him to
the custody of the sheriff until he
should answer the questions and pro-
duce the papers. A writ of habeas
corpus was thereupon sued out, and
a hearing had before another judge
of the same court, who discharged the
writ and remanded the witness. The
United States supreme court affirmed
the order of the lower court re-
handing the petitioner and held that
1.-The privilege against self-incrimin-
alton afforded by the United States
constitution, 5th amendment, is pure
ly personal to the witness, and he
cannot claim the privilege of another
person. or of the corporation of which
he is an officer or employee"
Hale VS. Henkel. U. S. Supreme
Court Opinion filed Mar. IL, 'O6.
CTTY'S DUTY REGARDING STREAM.
The New York court of appeals re-
Gently held that city owes no duty to
keep a stream in a. safe condition or
free from obstructions, altho the