The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1908-02-07
RECENT LEGAL DECISIONS
From the West Publishing
Of General Interest.

A1OiA NiC NSSI 1uDlISilIllS 70.
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
the United States circuit court for the
District OF Rhode Island, in Parkes VS..
6~easongood. l52 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-REsI-
perplexing and novel question
relating to the taxing power of a state
was decided by the United States supreme
court in Buck VS.. Beach, q Supreme Court
Reporter, 712, FOG U. S. 392. 81 L.. Ed. -.
in this case 1t appears that a resident of
New York had made loans to residents OF
Ohio 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 tn Indiana to take
charge of his Investments in that state.
For some reason Ii appears that the notes
given and payable in Ohio were, for a con-
siderable length of time, kept in the pos
session OF the Indiana agent. While
the notes were In the possession
of this agent, the Indiana author
ities assessed them for taxation and at
-.>l>N hoHNS AtGAScab IAt'A
cipally on the ground that the notes were
transferred from the Ohio agency to the
indiana agency in order to escape taxa
tton in ohio. But the court denies the
right OF Indiana to collect taxes on such
notes, Mr.. Justice Day. however. filing a
dissenting opinion.
LICENSING DRUMMERS SELLING
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.-The right OF
q state to impose a license tax on the bus
iness of selling intoxicating liquors with
In the state by travelling statesmen, who
solicit orders for wholesale houses in their
state. Is upheld by the United States SUI
preme court. in Dalameter VS.. South loa-
kota, q Supreme Court Reporter, 447. The
regulation by a state of the business car
ried on within its borders to solicit pro-
posals to sell intoxicating liquors, even
though such liquors are situated in other
states, cannot be held to be repugnant to
the commerce clause of the constitution
because directly or indirectly burdening
the right to sell In the state-a right
which by virtue of the Wilson act does not
exist.
ABSENCE OF ATTORNEY FROM
COURT AS Contemplate st. Louis
court of appeals in the case Of In re
Clark. l03 Southwestern Reporter, 11O5,
holds that the absence of an attorney from
the court in which he has business, and
when he should be there to attend to 1t,
and when his absence delays or impedes
the courts business, constitutes n con-
tempt of court. An attorney at law is an
y officer of the court, and it is as much in-
4 'cumbent on him to attend the sittings Of
i the court when a case in which he is of
4 counsel is on trial, and which trial cannot
proceed in his absence. as it is for the
sheriff or the clerk Of the court to be pres
y ent.
SUMMARY DESTRUCTION OF NOX-
. iIOUS HOGS.-In order to protect tho
llevees in the Desha Levee district against
II the well known proclivities of hogs to
n root, 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
s. Ross VS.. Desha Levee Board, 1903 South
4 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 1t has the
1 power to provide for destruction of prop
y lerty, may authorize this to be done sum
ilnarily in cases where the property is of
no great value and 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
filling Company VS.. Standard Distilling &
: Distributing Company, 1O5 New York Sup
plement, 264, the New York antitrust
law does not invalidate a lease of a dis
ttillery 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 that the lessor did not in any
way become a party to the Illegal combi-
nation or participate to any extent in the
scheme to avoid the law.