Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-01-18
Important Decisions

Important Decisions
lThe following notes of cases are
from the West Publishins COMPANY.
St. Paul. Mimi
TAXING INSURANCE COMPANIES.
The supreme court of South Car
olina was called upon to determine the
validity of a statute of that state pro-
Nl'hiig taxation of insurance COM
panies, in New York Life Insurance
company vs. Bradley, 65 Southeastern
Reporter 4S3. BY section 1905 of the
south carolina code of 1902 insurance
companies are required % to pay a Ii
cenSe fee of 500; 90 to make a quar-
teriy return of their gross premiums
t5) TO pay quarterly an additional
graduate license fee to the state treas
urer of one-half of l per cent on gross
premiums. BY section 1909 the comp
frol!er general is required to transmit
to the county auditor in each of the
various counties a statement of the
amount of premiums or receipts COL
lected therein during the preceding
year from the different insurance com
panies, and such statement is directed
to be placed on the tax duplicate. to-
ge'her with other items Of taxable
property owned by the companies.
Proceeding under this last provision. a
tax amounting to S1Tl,35 was paid un-
der protest by the New York Life In
surance Company to the treasurer of
AooeVllle county. and proceedings
thereafter instituted for its recovery.
1t was contended that the tax was sim
ply imposed as a condition to the right
of plaintiff foreign insurance COM
pany, to do business in the state. The
court held, however, that it was a prop
erty tax. and as il was not restricted
TO property or money of the insurance
company within the state at the time
of assessment but covered its gross
receipts for the entire year. it was IN
valid rs constituting a taking of prop
ertv without due process of law.
REFUSAL OF TECHNICALITY
One having been convicted of muir
criminal cases 1t was apparent that
self-inhicted and TO further establish
this fact testimony of physicians was
introduced. For the error in the ao-
mission of this evidence a new Tria
was sought, on the ground that the
prosecution, having offered this evil
dence as part of its case, was stopped
from denying its injurious effect. Ii
Byers vs.. Territory, 103 Pacific Report
+ er, 532, the Oklahoma criminal court OF
appeals refused TO be bound by or tt
follow the line of authorities which |,
condemned as technicality run mad
repugnant to reason, demoraliZing Nc
| respect for law and destructive
! to Justice. If the evidence the
admission Of which was error coult
reasonably have had any effect on tbs
! jury, this decision might have beef
different, but it is the fixed policy O.
! this court to refuse to reverse conWic.
tlGns upon mere technicalities or ex'
! cepnons which do not deprive the de-
PENDANT of a substantial right Ignor
ing justice and deciding cases upol
! technicalities has not only largely los
| TO the court the confidence and respec
Of the people. but it has great,
alarmed the profession of the law it
self.
! ONE WHO SETS A SPRING GUN.
In the case of Scheuermann VS.
Scharfenberg, so Southern Reporter
33o, this question arises: Is the owne
OF storehouse, in which goods ant
other valuables are kept by him TO
sale and In deposit, liable in trespas
to would-be burglar of such store
who is shot by means of
Ispring gun placed in the stor
by the owner for the purpos
of shooting persons who might at
tempt to burglarize it, the gun bein
discharged by the would-be burgla
while attempting to enter, but afte
the breaking is completely The Ala
bama supreme court referring to tn
right to defend ones property as we
as his person against violence and fel
ionies. and citing cases holding a man
place of business susceptible of iii
same defense as his dwelling agains
burglarious intrusions, decided that tn
setter of the spring gun was not liabl
in damages to him who attempted bur
larry.
NON INTOXICATING LIQUOR.
An act was passed in Alabama wfic
prohibited sale of certain nonintoxicat
ing liquors at any place where the sal
of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor
was forbidden by law In Elder v!
State, so Southern Reporter, $40,
! was urged that the legislature had n
power to prohibit the sale of article
: not injurious to either the health G
the morals of the people, and that sue
r Q, statute was an unwarranted invasio
J Of the rights of the citizen. On the 9th
er hand. it was asserted that in orde
3 more thoroughly to prohibit the sale {
3 malt liquor known to be an intoxican
4 and to safeguard against evasions {
E such law, the state had power to pre-
t hibit the sale of any beverages con
: tanning the ingredient of malt liquor
! The Alabama supreme court held th
act unconstitutional. concluding tiss
9 these drastic prohibitory laws al
. doubtless intended for the moral bene
: At and elevation of mankind, but the
I moral purpose or beneficient resul'
q must not be considered, to save then
{ when they invade the ssnctity of tn
( Constitutional rights Of cur citizens.