Camas Prairie chronicle. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1901-1917, 1910-04-22
Legal Information


A person who waits for street car
at a proper cross walk, sees the car
coming, and is struck and injured by
it through his own negligence, is held,
in Wood VS.. Omaha & G. B. street rail-
way company (Neb), 100 N. w. 1921,
% L. R. A. IN. ST. 22S, not to be en-
titled to recover damages on the sole
ground that the motorman failed to
sound the gong.
That a sidetrack of a railroad can
not be regarded as for public use,
where 1t reaches a private factory,
and the railroad company has connect
ed for its use only when it can use It
without interfering with the business
OF the manufacturer, is held in Pere
Marquette r. Co. VS.. United States
Gypsum Co., 154 Mich. 29O, lit N. w.
1888, 20 L. r. A. IN. 81 181.
The liability of master for injury
to an employe because of defective
railroad track, which he had promised
to repair, upon complaint by the serv-
ant of its defective condition, is held,
in Morgan VS.. Rainier Beach Lumber
Co., 81 Wash. 1886, SO Pac. 1920, % l..
R. A. IN. S. 472, not to be affected
by the fact that the repair was not
to be made until the happening of a
future event, such as the return of a
section boss, which had not occurred
at the time of the injury.
An innkeeper is held, in Rockhill
VS.. Congress Hotel Co., 237 III. SO, SO
N. E. TAO, % L. r. A. IN. 81 576, not
to be relieved from liability for the
value of jewels forming part of he
contents of a handbag of a guest.
which is lost while in the actual nos.
session of his servant, by a statute
requiring him to keep a safe and post
notices that he will not be liable for
the valuables not delivered for deposit
therein, and upon compliance there
with he shall not be liable for loss
unless it shall occur by a servant en-
ployed by him in the inn.
The constitutionality of the law
providing increased penalties for ha.
bitual criminals was assailed in State
VS.. LIE Pitre, 1903 Pacific Reporter, q.
The Washington Supreme Court de-
cided that while the habitual criminal
statute was a thing of modern crea-
ton, and there are many rules of law
which may seem inconsistent with it's
purpose and the procedure adopted to
compass it, 1t is nevertheless sound in
principle and sustained by reason.
Aside from the offender and his vic.
tim, there is always another party
concerned in every crime committed
the state-and it does no violence
to any constitutional guaranty for the
state to rid itself of depravity when
its efforts to reform have failed. The
act is not ex post facto. 1t does not
deny the right of trial by jury. 1t
does not put the offender twice in
jeopardy. 1t does not inflict a double
punishment for the same offense or
inflict a cruel or unusual punishment.
or impose a penalty for crime COM
mitted outside of the state. 1t merely
provides an increased punishment for
the last oEense. The spirit of the law
is in keeping with the acknowledged
power of the legislature to provide a
minimum and maximum term within
which the trial court may exercise its
discretion in fixing sentence, taking
into consideration, is it should al
ways, the character of the person as
well as the probability of reforma-
ton; or the legislature may take
away all discretion and tx a penalty
absolute.