The Bon Homme County independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1904-1913, 1908-02-06

prom the weEt Pupllahlnr AZ.
OF General Interest.

~ 1AC WOot GubASUIuK To-
TRAINED NURSE NOT A SERVANT.
"a trained nurse performing her usual
duties, and exercising the skill which is
the result OF training in her profession,
does not, according to the decision OF
h United States circuit court for the
District Of Rhode Island, in Parkes VS..
Seasongood. 162 Federal Reporter, $50,
come within the definition of a servant"
but rather Is one who renders personal
services TO an employer In an independent
calling.
TAXATION OF NOTE OF NoN-REsr-
DENT.-A perplexing and novel question
relating to the taxing power OF a state
was decided by the United States supreme
court In Buck VS.. Beach, ~ Supreme Court
Reporter, ~, D6 U. s.. 1872, 81 L. Ed. 800.
In his case IL appears that q resident Of
New York had made loans to residents OF
hi on notes given and payable in Ohio
and secured by mortgages on land In the
latter state. The payee OF the notes had
an agent In Ohio to look after his inter-
ests there. and another In Indiana to take
charge OF his investments In that state
Eor some reason 1t appears that the notes
given and payable in Ohio were, for a COM
siderable length OF time, kept in the pos
session or the ndian agent. While
the notes were in the possession
OF this agent, the Indiana author
tiles assessed them for taxation and at
tempted TO collect taxes thereon. pr.n-
cipally on the ground that the notes were
transferred from the Ohio agency to the
Indiana agency In order to escape taxa
ton In Ohio. But the court denies the
right Of Indiana to collect taxes on such
notes, Mr.. Justice Day, however. fling a
dissenting opinion.
LICENSING DRUMMERS SELLING
INTOXICATING LIQUoRS.-The right OF
q state to impose a license tax on the bus
mess OF selling Intoxicating liquors with
In the state by travelling statesmen, who
solicit orders for wholesale houses in their
state, IL upheld by the United States SUI
prenfe court, in Dalameter vs. South Da-
kota, 81 Supreme Court Reporter, az. M
regulation by a state OF the business car
rfed on within It's borders to solicit pro-
posals to sell Intoxicating liquors, even
though such liquors are situated In other
states, cannot be held to be ~repugnant 10
the CLAUSE OF the constitution
because directly or indirectly burdening
the right 70 sell In the state-a right
which by virtue OF the Wilson act does not
exist.
ABSENCE OF ATTORNEY FROM
COURT AS CoNTEMPT.-The st. Louis
court OF appeals I'm the case of In re
SAo NJ A~ "SoNCAu IkCpOTICTs 1uUO,
holds that the absence OF an attorney from
the court In which he has business, and
when he should be there to attend to II,
and when his absence delays or impedes
the courts business, constitutes a con-
tempt of court. An attorney at law is an
officer Of the court, and 1t Is as much in
cumbent on him to attend the sittings of
the court when a case in which he Is OF
counsel Is on trial, and which trial cannot
proceed In his absence, as II is for the
sheriff or the clerk OF the court to be pres
emit.
SUMMARY DESTRUCTION OF Nox-
IOUS HOGS.-In order to protect the
1evees in the Desha Levee district against
the well known proclivities of hogs to
and thus weaken the levees. the Ar
kansas legislature has provided for the
summary destruction Of hogs running
at large on such levees. This law Is In
Ross vs. Desha Levee Board, 1s South
western Reporter, $50, by the Arkansas
supreme court, held to be a valid exer-
else Of the police power of the state. The
court says: "The state, where II mas the
power to provide for destruction OF prop
erty, may authorize this to be done sum-
marily in cases where the property Is of
no great value n the emergency Is such
as not to admit Of delay"
VALIDITY OF A LEASE To'A MO-
Notwithstanding to the decision OF the
New York supreme court In Brooklyn Dis 7
filling Company VS.. Standard DistifinR e.
Distributing Company, 16 New York sup
plement ga, the New York anti-trust
law does not invalidate a lease of a dis
tillery to a corporation organized to create
a monopoly In the manufacture and sale
OF alcoholic and spirituous liquors, even
though the lessor knew that the motive
OF the lessee In taking the lease was to
create a monopoly. The court takes the
position that the law does not prevent a
person from buying or leasing property
In furtherance OF the creation Of a mo-
nopoly. The controlling point with the
court was hat the lessor did not in any
way become a party to the illegal combi-
nation or participate to any extent in the
acharna IN avoid the Iauy y"