Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-07-16
Important Decisions
Compiled by West Publishing Com.
pany, st. Paul, MIMI
INJURIES.


the unwary bedbugs that might be in
waiting to disturb the dreams of the
weary traveller. Tho evidence showed
that while defendant in error in Pull
man Company v. Caviness, 116 South
western Reporter, 40, was thus en-
gagged, he heard something pop, and
suddenly the flames from the liquid
shot up to the top Of the car and -
verely burned him. The car company
had been using the same preparation
for several years, and no similar Rcci-
dent had ever been known. The Texas
court Of civil appeals reversed judg-
ment for plaintiff in the trial court
and held that under the circumstances
there was nothing to indicate any neg
ligence on the part of the company in
failing to notify plaintiff of the danger.
UNREASONABLE SEARCH.
The Maine supreme courts re-
ference in a previous decision to
search warrant as "a sharp
and heavy police weapon to be
used most carefully lest it wound the
security or liberty of the citizen" is
fully justified by the conduct OF the
officers as related In Buckley v. Beau
lieu, II Atlantic Reported, 70. Under
the authority Of warrant to search
certain premises for intoxicating liq-
uors, and armed with axes, pickaxes,
and crowbars, they entered the house
and made search from attic to cell
lar, and even dug into the floor of the
cellar. On finding no liquors, and
strongly suspecting they were some
where concealed about the house, they
broke into and tore out strip from
the interior walls of the rooms below
stairs entirely round each room, and
dropped the debris upon the floors and
carpets. All this was done In the hope
Of finding. not the liquors. but some
pipe or other clue leading to the
liquors. The officers then departed,
leaving the occupants to remove the
debris, and leaving the plaintiff. the
owner, TO restore his house. and make
it again habitable. Such conduct was
declared by the court to be unlawful
and such seach entirely unreason-
able and in excess of the officers au-
shorisy. II vas no dsfalss to an action
for damages that they acted in gooo
faith. in the full belief that the occu-
pant was keeping liquors in the house
NAcidlACu w the Jaw.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
In the case OF the American Express
Company vs. Mullins. % Supreme
Court Reporter. ISL, it appeared that
Mullins had delivered certain liquor to
the express company in the state of
Kentucky for transportation to and
delivery in Kansas in violation of the
laws of the latter state. On arrival of
the goods at destination, they were
seized by a sheriff under a warrant is
sued by district court in Kansas, and
notice given to show cause why they
should not be forfeited and destroyed.
The express company notified the ship
per OF the proceedings taken, and he
promised to defend but apparently did
not do so, and the Kansas authorities
destroyed the liquor. The present ac-
ton was then instituted against the
express company to recover for the
loss of the goods. on the theory that
it was its duty to defend the search
esd seizure proceedings. and that they
were without variant of law and void.
The United States supreme court held
that the shipper having received no.
tice Of the proceedings and having
promised 10 defend, the express COM
pany was thereby relieved from this
duty. AS against the contention that
the Kansas judgment was wrong and
in conflict with prior decision Of the
supreme court Of the United States. it
was held to be conclusive and unim-
peachable on the theory Of being based
upon a mistake Of law.
CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONS.
The case of Nielsen vs. Oregon, 90
supreme court reporter, 3s3, deter
mines an Interesting question relative
to fishery rights on the Columbia riv-
er, where it forms the common boun-
dairy between the states Of Oregon
and Washington Under the act of con-
gress organizing the territory of
Washington and the act admitting
Oregon into the union as a state, con-
current jurisdiction was given both
states over that part of the Columbia
river forming the common boundary.
The laws of Oregon prohibit the
maintenance of purse nets on the wa
tiers of the Columbia river, but there is
no such statute in force in Washing
ton. Notwithstanding the fact that
Nielsen held a license from Washing
ton to operate such net, and was
maintaining it on Washington terri
tory in accordance with Washington
laws, he was arrested and convicted by
an Oregon court of violation OF the
statute of that state. and his convic-
ton affirmed by the Oregon supreme
court, 95 Pacific reporter, 720. He then
appealed to the supreme court OF the
United States. 1t reversed the judy
ment OF the state court, and held. that
one state could not prosecute citi-
zen of another state for doing an act
In that state under its authority and
in accordance with its laws.
DISCARDED ATTORNEY.
In an interesting opinion handed
down by the supreme court of South
Dakota in Danforth VS.. Egan. 119
Northwestern Reporter, 1921, the right
Of disbarred attorney to take office
as states attorney is considered. De-
PENDANT Egan received g. majority Of
the votes cast for states attorney in his
county. and was given certificate of
election. He had formerly been IL
censed attorney in the state. but was
disbarred from prArttcing therein
shortly before his election It was
-. -