davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1907-12-03


ranks OF the letter carriers over the re-
solution adopted at the recent annual
convention to pay J. D. Holland ten
thousand dollars In recognition OF his
services in securing the passage OF the
increased salary bill, MIR. Holland was
fortunate enough 10 be President OF the
National Association Of Letter Carriers
when the bill went through. The work
lone by previous presidents and others
seems to have been lost sight OF in the
to properly reward Mr.. Hol.
land. The Letter Carriers Association
had been fighting for years to obtain an
increase in salary for the force and a
number Of campaigns had been waged.
last yeau B,e PostofIice Department
and especially First Assistant Postmast-
or General Hitchcock, urged the increase
and II was granted by Congress At the
in Canton, Ohio. Mr.. Holland
retired and resolution to give him ten
thousands dollars was passed. This has
not met with the approval Of many Of
Branch 30. Now New York City, which
has been active In sending throughout
The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1907-12-03
PEOPLES INSTITUTE.
Most Unique Organization oi lts
Kind In the World. 4
MANYARTlCLEs LOST lNAYEAR

Thirty thousand Umbrellas Left on
Trains--CIcan Bill OF Health Given to
California Birds--Lettcr Carriers Dia-
cvss Resolution Of National Convention
The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1907-12-03


Of the great majority Of California fruit
growers toward the bird population
While many Of them stated that they
still suffered less none advocated mea-
sures for the determination or even lac
material decrease Of the birds. II II
pleasant 10 note that harm, Mr.. Beall
finds that the sentiment appears to be
we can't get along without the BIRDS
Among the birds investigated were the
House Finch. unnet, Western Eanager,
Swallows. including the cliG, Western
Barn and Violet Green; California
shrike; Western warbling vireo. cassin
yireo; warblers Of various kinds, West
crn Mocking Bird. California Thasher
wrens. Nuthatehes and Pitmicei King,
let's, Gnatcatchers and robins.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
ALLEN EFT AL vs. CALDWELL, WARD & CO. AND CALDWELL. WARD
 6 CO. Ys. ALLEN. FIT AL

ALLEN EFT AL vs. CALDWELL, WARD
 & CO. AND CALDWELL. WARD & CO.,, vs. ALLEN. FIT AL Action by Broker to Recover Advances
 Made as the Agent of the Prfn-
 cipal in a Wager Contract. Fore
 closure-(Decided Dec. 20. 1906.
 42 So. Rep. s55)
 1. Gaming contract; futures, right of broker to recover advances,-A con- tract for the sale of cotton on mar gin, where neither party expects or agrees to receive or deliver the actual | cotton sold or bought, is a wager con- tract under the common law; yet a broker having no in crest in the trans action and not sharing in the profit or loss, is entitled to be reimbursed for advances made for his principal.
 2. Contracts; legality of objects | conflict of laws; what law governs.- Louisiana not being of common law origin with Alabama, when a contract to be performed in Louisiana is sued on in Alabama, and proof is hot made of the laws of Louisiana, the Alabama court will be governed by the statutes of Alabama, when applicable to the facts, it being impossible to apply the common law.
 g. Gaming contract, burden of proof--One asserting that a contract is violatiVe of the statute making con- tracts based on a gambling consider alton void, has the burden of prov ing it.
 f. Payment; invalidity of note giv- en as evidence of debt.-The creditors 6 right to sue on the debt is not infected debt, oven if the note was obtained through fraud.
 D. Fraudulent conveyances: inval- | idity as against existing creditors.- A voluntary conveyance from a hus- band to his wife is void as to existing creditors.
 6. Same; effect as 10 subsequent credItors.-A voluntary conveyance from T husband to his wife 's valid wher" all of his existing creditors were secured, and it does not appear that nc foresaw future liability. as to subsequent creditors under the rule that voluntary conveyance is valid against subsequent creditors in the ahseEo" of actual fraud.
 [. same; effect of delay in record ing Dpuveyance.--The failure to record d''d voluntarily executed by a hus- bard to his wife is not, of itself evi- den" If d fraudulent conveyance, and where consistent with good intentions, th' law attributes no bad motive to the grantee.
 N same; action to set aside; Buffi- cietoy of evidence.-The evidence Tn thIs ease examined and held not sur- n'hnt to show that the deed from the hurhand to the wife was executed at d les date than is purported on its iarO and after the debt to plaintiff Wa incurred
 2 Same; subsequent creditors; bur deu If proof.-The burden is on the crf't'r to show that the deed was actually executed subsequent to the creation of the debt where the deed on Its face antedates the creditor of the debt
 Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
 Heard before Hon. A. D. Eayrs.,
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
Head Notes of the Decisions
 of the ALabana Supreme Court

maturity of the mortgage, where he has no right of possession to the prop erty before default in the mortgage.
 2. Same.-The equity of chattel mortgagor being subject to execution or attachment, and the officer havin g an exclusive right of possession and the right to remove the property from the debtors premises, the plaintiff fin execution or attachment cannot be made liable for trespass or trover in taking the property under either pro- cess.
 3. Trover and conversion; deten- tion of property; necessity for de- mand.-In the absence of demand for the delivery of the property, the officers retention of it's possession was not conversion, where the property taken by the officer under execution was released and the mor,gagor noti- fled thereof.
 4. Landlord and tenant; lien for rent; superiority over chattel mort gage.-The lien for rent of the land lord and his assignee on a crop raised that of a mortgagee under Sections 270S-06, Code 1896, and the landlord and his assignee are not restricted to any particular portion of the crop for the enforcement of their lien.
 Appeal from Talladega City Court
 Heard before Hon. G. K. Miller.
 Reversed and rendered. Opinion by Tyson, c. J.
 Dowdell, Anderson and Mcclellan, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
lbIu ulHU U|Hlu ulnu ulNl uIE mlIH ulEIUllDu U
ccGDsrEIN vs. DRYsDALE.

GC1DSTE1N vs. DRYSDALE. Action for wrongfully and Maliciously
 Suing out Attachment.-(Decided
 Nov 2f, 1906. 42. So. Rep. 744.)
 | Attaohment; wrongful attach msntt issue and proof.-One suing on the case for wrongfu1fy. maliciously and without probable cause procuring an aktAohment. must show that 1t was 6ons wrongful1y, maliicously and with ct probable cause, and cannot recover On the mere showing that the at tachment was wrongful1y sued out.
 .. Judgment; res adjudicata; at- tachment proceedings.-Where there was judgment in favor of one of the Attendants to an attachment writ sued out to enforce the collection of rent notes, 1t was conclusive that the debt was not owing by said defendant, and that as to such defendant the attach ment was wrongfully sued out.
 S Attachment; question for jury The plaintiff having shown that the attachment, as to her. was wrongfuily sworn out, it was question Tor the fury to determine whether 1t was done maiiciously and without prooaole cause.
 1. same.-where it appeared that the defendant directed the levy, 1t was properly left to the jury to say wneth- CT he caused the seizure and whether he did so maltciously and without probable cause, it appearing that It was wrongfully done.
 s. Same; persons liable.-W nere tAe! ataohnnent was wrongful, and the plaintiff in attachment directed the levy hereunder, he was liable as a CO., trespasser.
 6. Same.-It Is a defense to an ac- ton for wrongful attachment that plaintiff did not make the affidavit for attachment until he was advised to do n ttnYVaIC to him of all the facts
 T. Same; jury question-Whether defendant made a full and fair state ment to his attorney of the facts be- fore making the affidavit for attach merlt, in an action for wrongfully, ma iiciously and without probable cause suing out an attachment, was aues- tion properly submitted to the jury.
 Appeal from Selma City Court
 Heard before Hon. J. W. Mabry.
 Affirmed Opinion by Anderson, J.
 Tyson. c. J., and Dowdell and McClel- Ian. JJ,. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21

dence amount of damayes.-1t was permissible to show that plaintiff, who was a physician could not care for his practice as conveniently and agree ably. and what was the average amount of his practice per month, be- fore the injury. as an element of dam age.
 s. Same: adnissibility on the plead ings.-The complaint not alleging damages because of loss of business, it was incompetent to show the de- crease in the physician's practice, and the impairment of his ability to prac- tice.
 g. Evidence; opinions; injuries; ability to practice medicine.--ft was incompetent for the physician to testi- fly as to his opinion as to what per cent his ability to practice his profes- sion had been decreased by his nju- ries.
 10. Same: hearsay; notice to part ner.-1t Is hearsay or opinion evidence for a partner to state that his partner, or firm, had never been notified of n certain fact. and inadmissible.
 II. Highways; Instructions; owner of property; authority to obstruct- The fact that the owner of the prop erty had authorized defendants to cut ditch across road over said prop erty used by the public would not au- thorize the cutting of said ditch in such manner as to edanger traveller along the road in the night.
 12. Principal and agent; authority of agent; experimentation who is superintendent only of the lime works of his employer has no authority by virtue of such agency to authorize the cutting of ditch across the road over his employers property.
 Appeal from Shelbry Circuit Court
 Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Tyson, c. J., Simpson and Denson. JJ.. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
BROOKS ys. ROMANO.


 Attachment.-(Decide Dec. 20, 1906. 42
 So Rep. S19.)
 1. Actions; misjoinder;- tort and contract.-A complaint containing two counts, one for deceit in the sale of goods. and one for a breach of war ranty of soundness made on the sale of the goods. is demurrable for a mis- joinder of the counts; the first count being case, and the other assumpsit. ?. Election of remedies; sale; breach of warranty.-Plaintif purchased of the defendant certain goods, and on examination found that they were of inferior quality. and of a different kind contracted for. whereupon plain- tiff declined to receive the goods, and so notified defendant. Defendant re- fused to refund the money paid for them, and refused to take the goods back. Plaintiff then took the goods and sued for damages. P1aintiff did not by such action, elect remedy and thereby estop himself to maintain this action.
 Appeal from Bessemer City Court. Heard before Hon. William Jackson. Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Denson, J.
 Tyson, c. J., and Haralson and Simp- son, JJ.. concur. JONES, ct al, V. PIONEER MIN. &
 MFG co. Action for Damages for Death of Elm
 ploye.-(Decided Jan. r, 1907. AZ
 So. Rep. 99S.)
 1. Master and servant; injury to servant; contrihutory negligence "A plea of contributory negligence which alleges in theualternative that plaint- in's intestate knew or by reasonable
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21

GUARRENO vs THE STATE. Selling Iiouor Without f.icense.-(De-
 cided Dec. 2o 1906. AZ So. Rep.
 S3s) ..-.
 1. Intoxicating liquors; offenses; IT, dictment; sufflciency.-Section b077, Code 1SSG, does not require that :he place shall be specified and an in dictment which charges that defen- dant sold spirituous etc, liquors with out a license and contrary to law, is good, whether the offense charged be a violation of the general revenue law, or the violation of local prohibition law.
 2. Same; evidence; proof of sale; necessity.-Proof that accused sold i'm toxicatins liquors without license and contrary to law, must be confined to a sale of such liquors under an in- dictment in code form.
 3. Same; Indictment; sufficiencv.- An indictment charging that defen- dant did sell. give away or otherwise dispose of intoxicating liquors, etc, without license and contrary to law, is sufficient to charge the "ffense de nounced by the Acts 1SSS-9. D. 417 and sufficiently negatives the excep- ton contained in the statute
 4 Same; evidence.-Where the evil dencc showed that the sale of liquor was made by the wife of the defen- dant, 1t was competent to show the frequency of such sales by the wife at the store. as this afforded an in ference that the defendant kept such liquor at his store, and that in nak- ing such sales, the wife acted as his agent.
 ,. Criminal law; reception of evi- lcnce; electiOn.-Where the prosecu- tor testified that he purchased bot tie of liquor at defendants store, from a woman who represented herself to he the wife of the defendant, and other witnesses testified that they had bought such liquors from the defen- dant; Held, not to require the State
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21

an alleged agent of defendant. . charge assherting that if the jury be- lieve all the evidence, the arrest was without the authority of the agent, is improper, as it ignores evidence of prior authority or ratification.
 14. Same.-A charge that unless de- fendant ratified the agents act, the verditc should be for the defendant, ignores the evidence of prior author ity and is properly refused.
 5. Same.-An instruction that if the agent had no authority from plain tiff to arrest defendant, except such as was implied by the relation between them, unless the defendant ratified the arrest, is untintelligible for confusing the parties.
 16. Pleading; demurrer.-A plea as- sertfng that plaintiff was arrested un- der a warrant properly issued for vio- lating an ordinance as to sale of milk was demurrable in not confess ing nor avoiding the allegations of the count to which it was addressed.
 Appeal from Birmingham City Court
 Heard before Hon. Charles A. Eenn.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Anderson, J.
 Weakley, c. J., Tyson and Denson, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
STEVENS vs. BAILEY & HOWARD. Action for Commissions as Real Estate Brokers.-(Decided Dec. 21 1906 42
 En Rap 7AnN


 STEVENS vs BAILEY & HOWARD. Action for Commissions as Real Estate Brokers.-(Decided Dec. 21 1906. 42
 So. Rep. 740.)
 1. Brokers; action for compensa- ton; complaint; sufficiency.-Wnere the complaint alleged that defendant employed plaintiff to obtain for him purchaser for a certain piece of prop erty, agreeing with plaintiff to pay him all above a certain sum over the purchasers price for his services, it contains a sufficient averment of the employment of plaintiff.
 g. Same.-A complaint alleging that defendant authorized plaintiff to sell defendant's property on specified terms, and that plaintiff fully complied with the same, and that when it was reported to defendant he approved and accepted the offer of the purchaser, and that the purchaser was able and willing to pay for the property, but that defendant reflDsed 10 Consumn>te the trade, sufficiently shows an em- ployment of plaintiff.
 8. Same; defenseS; statute of frauds. Tt is no defense to an action to re- cover commission or compensation for the sale of land that the contract with the broker was within the statute of frauds.
 (. Same.-The evidence in this case considered. and if is held that the question of plaintiffs employment was one for the jury.
 B.. Same; employment--When a real estate broker asks and obtains a cer- tain price for real estate from the owner, that, without more, does not establish the relation of principal and agent, nor show a contract of employ ment
 Appeal from the Birmingham City Court
 
 Reversed and remanded. OOpinion by Haralson, J.
 All the justices concur, except Chief Justice who was disqualified
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
BUFCRD vs. CHRISTIAN Trespass Quare Clausum Fregit.-(De cided Jan 22 1907. 42 Eo Rep

BUFCRD Vs. CHRISTIAN. Trespass Quare Clausum Fregit.-(De-
 cided Jan. 22, 1907. AZ So. Rep.
 1. Appeal; harmless error; pleading Any error in striking special pleas is rendered harmless where the mat ters set up therein were admitted un- der the general issue.
 2. Same; admission of evidence Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of evidence as to his acts on the land after the commencement of the suit where the recovery was for nominal damages only.
 3. Same; failure to present question below.-where instructions, if mis- leading. could have been cured by re- quested instructions in the court be- low, but no such request was made, 1t was harmless error to give them.
 4. Trespass; right of action; plain tiffs possession.-The fact that plain tiffs tenant, without notice to plain tiff, attorned to the defendant did not destroy plaintiffs possession Eo as to preclude her from maintaining an nc tion of trespass.
 5, Trial; instructions; application to evidence.-where the evidence showed that the defendants acts were not acts | of adverse possession but were pure l ly trespasses, 1t was proper to refuse | an instruction to the effect that there l should be a verdict for the defendant if he was In adverse possession of the lands.
 s. Appeal and error; trial courts disc retion.-The action of the presid- ing judge whether he certifies or re fuses to certify under the provisions of Section 1926 of the Code, so as to fix the amount of costs on plaintiff in excess of the amount of the judgment or not, is not reviewable on appeal; nor can the action of the judge, as to such matter. be controlled by manda- mus.
 Appeal from Madison Circuit Court
 Heard before Hon. Paul Speak,e Spe- cial Judge.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson. c. J.
 Haralssn. Simpson and Denson, u. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
FIX PARTE BUD OWENS

Petition for Writ of Prohibition
 (Decided Dec. 6, 1906. 42 So. Rep
 676.)
 1. Elections; removal of county seat; number of votes required.-Sec- tion Al, Constitution 1901, does not require that a majority of all the qual- flied electors of the county is re- quired to change the county seat; a majority of the number of votes cast is sufficient.
 ?. Statutes: general and special laws; constitutional law; countless The acts of 1903. D. IF, is not yiola- tive of Section 1so of the. Constitution of 1901.
 3. Constitutional law; validity Of statutes in genera1.-Before statute will be held to be violative of the Constitution, 1t must be obnoxious to the express terms of the same, or the necessary implication from such term.
 A. Elections; secrecy as to vote-- The act providing for the elections for change of county seat, in its provision as to numbering ballots (Acts 1903, gen- eral, p. IT'D, Is not violative of the Constitution upon the theory that the Constitution requires complete and in violable secrecy of the ballot.
 Original petition in Supreme Court.
 Application denied. Opinion by Simp- son. J.
 Weakley.s c. J., Haralson, Dowdell and Anderson, JJ.. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
WILSON AND SON vs. CURRY.

WILSON AND BON vs. CURRY. Trespass and Trover.-(Decided Jan.
 IA. 1907. 42 So. Rep. 753)
 l. Chattel mortgages; right of mortgagee before maturity: trover and trespass-A cahtel mortgagee cannot maintain an action for conversion or for trespass against the mortgage property, by a third person, before
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
PEPPERS vs. THE STATE


 Assault With Intent to Murder.-(De-
 cided Dec. IS, 1s06 42 So. Rep.
 734.)
 Criminal law; appeal; record; organ ization of grand Jury.-Although the venire states the name of John L.. Gradin with his residence as Kdrby's Beat Number IT, and the record shows "all persons therein named and so summoned answered therto, and ap- peared in open court, except A. Ken nemer" (and after stating that cer- tain persons were excused, states) that John T. Gradin appeared in open court and 1t being ascertained that the said John T. Gradin was the only person in that beat (number ID, by that name.> was duly sworn as a grand 3u- TOT, it appears from such record that John T. Gradin was the only Gradin on said venire. and was the only Grad In sworn as a grand juror, and hence, there was not an unlawful humber of persons on said grand jury.
 Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson, J. Tyson, c. J., Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
CITY COUNCIL OF MONTGOMERY VI.
 WEST

Violating City Ordinance Decided Jan.
 23rd, 1s07--42 So. Rep. 1O00.)
 1 Muniipal Corporations; ordinances. -An ordinance forbidding the operation of steam engines. blaming mills. foun- dies. blacksmith shops. etc, within the city limits, without first o5tainng the consent of the council, is invalid, in that 1t fails to prescribe a uniform rule of action but reserves to the council the right to grant or witLho-I the privil- ege arbitrarily.
 Appealed from Montgomery city court.
 Heard before Hon. A. D. Sayre
 Affirmed Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Tyson, c. J., Simpson and Denson, U. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21

to elect as to which sale 1t would re- ly on for a conviction.
 $. Grand jury: misconduct of grand Jurors.-The fact that the bottle of beer purchased by the witness was carried by him into the gra1d jury room and that one of the grand jurors tasted it to determine what it was, cannot have the effect of destroying the validity of the indictment.
 Appeal from Bessemer City Court.
 Heard before Hon. William Jackson.
 Affirmed. opinion by Denson, J.
 Tyson. c. J., Haralson and Simpson. JJ, concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-04-21
MONROE vs. THE STATE

-42 So. Rep.l 99e.)
 Criminal Law; judgment.--In e mis- demeanor case the sentence should show an entertainment of the costs and the determination by the court of the number of days required to work 1t out. at thirty cents per day. not to ex- ceed ten months; and 8 sentence order ing accused to perform additional la- bor not to exceed ten months. at eighty three cents per day. until the costs are satisfied is improper. but the court will do no more than reverse for a resent ence according to law.
 Appealed from Jefferson criminal court
 Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.
 Reversed and remanded Opinion by Anderson. J.
 Dowdell. Densons and Mcclellan. JJ.. concur.