Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-04-03
tlmportant Decisions
MALICIOUS INJURY.

The plaintiff in error, who were pro.
prietors of certain newspapers wera
convicted of maliciously and unla'Wful-
ly combining together with the intent
to wilfully and maliciously injure the
business of another newspaper. The al
legged unlawful combination consisting
in an agreement to charge such adj
vertisers as patronized the rival paper
the same rate for advertising as was
charged by that paper, while to those
who did not advertise in the rival pa
per a low rate was charged Ina
plaintiffs in error contended that the
statute, if it applied to such a case
was in violation of the fourteenth
amendment as depriving the citizen OF
lawful right to contract. In denying
such contention, Mr.. Justice Holmes
said: When the acts consist IN max
ing combination calculated to cause
temporal damage, the power to punish
such acts, when done maliciously, can
not be denied because they are to ne
followed and worked out by conduct
of which might have been lawful Il
not preceded by the acts. No conduct
has such an absolute privilege as 10
Justify all possible schemes OF which IT.
may be a part. The most Innocent
and constitutionally protected by acts
or omissions may be made step IN
a criminal plot; and If it Is step III
plot, neither its innocence nor the
constitution Is sufficient to prevent
the punishment Of the plot by law
Aikens vs.. Wisconsin, % Sup. Ct. Rep.
/ 3, u. S. Supreme Court.
IGNORANCE NOT AN EXCUSE
The action was brought on an indem-
nifty bond given by the defendant to In
demnify the plaintiff against damages
for negligent injuries to employees. An
injured employee having libeled one OF
PLAINTIFFS vessels on claim for negli-
gence, and also for failure to supply the
libeIant with proper surgical treat
ment for the injury, the defendants
attorney defended the suit, and after
Judgment for libelant the plaintiff dis
missed an appeal from such Judgment
on advice of the defendant, who agreed
to reimburse the plaintiff the amount
Of such judgment. Held, that altno
the Judgment in the libel suit was not
based on negligence, but on fa1lure
to provide medical attention for which
defendant was not liable under the IN
demnity bond). yet the defendant was
|
fact by reason of it's failure to possess
itself of the knowledge held by lts
attorneys in that regard, and it never
theless assuming to instruct the plains
tiff to abandon it's appeal, knowing that
the latter relied on such instructions
Glove Nav. CO. VS.. Maryland Casualty
Co. (Wash.), 81 Pac. Rep. S26.
AUTHORITY OF AGENT.
An agent, having general and unre-
stricted powers, traded on Sunday
horse belonging to his principal. In an
action of replevin brought by the prln-
cipal to recover the horse, the point
of contention was that, as contract
of sale or barter or trade made on sun
day is invalid, the principal could not
be bound by the illegal act OF the agent,
and might therefore repudiate the
ira nsa ction and reclaim the horse.
Held, that THE executed contract en-
tered into by the agent was blnuanS
upon the principal, and that the Yact
| that it was made on Sunday, and con-
seuuently was unlawful, did not take II
out of the scope of the agents author.
| ity to make it No executory contract
of sale made on Sunday can be en-
| forced, but an executed contract, tho
made on Sunday, cannot be avofded
merely because 1t was entered into as
| a dies non. 1.-THE mere fact that an
agent, in the course Of exercising
delegated authority, himself violates
prohibitiye statute does not lDerate OF
discharge the principal from the oD'-
CATION of the contract, If the contract
| is one within the scope of his author
| ity.,-Rickards VS.. Richards, Sc Atk;
| Rep. 397.