Evening times-Republican., 1911-04-28

ended; now came the tragedy. De-
fendant was charged with the crime Of
bigamay. The question Of appeal is
whether the second marriage of the
Yoders wAS an absolute nullity. and
therefore no foundation for the charge
against defendant Of bigamy by reason
OF the marriage with Miss Hull. The
supreme court of Minnesota holds that
q marriage contract is nullity alb in
tito only when expressly so declared
by statute. Here the statute only pro-
hibited the remarriage for a definite
time, so their remarriage merely vio-
lated the law, and was not therefore
a nulhty.
PANAMA LIBEL SUIT.
On March 4, 1909. a grand Jury in the
circuit court for the Southern district
OF New York, indicted the Press Pub
fishing Company, issuing the World
newspaper printed in the city Of New
York, charging it with having crimin-
ally libeled the president of the United
States, the secretary of war. and GER
tain private Individuals. The alleged
libelous articles related to the pur-
chase by the United States Of the
Panama canal, and were circulated
within the reservation and military
post in New York, known as West
Point. The case went to trial upon
plea Of not guilty. At the close Of the
evidence the court quashed the in
dictment, announcing that 1t had con-
cluded that the Indictment was not
authorized by the Act Of Congress
July Z, 1898, 80 Stat. TIT. C, 576 Gu. s.
Comp. st. 1901, p. 3652), which pro-
vides that offenses committed in places
under the exclusive jurisdiction and
control Of the United States shall be
punished in accordance with the laws
Of the state in which such places are
situated In cases where the punish
ment for the offense is not provided for
by any law Of the United States. To
review the action of the trial court,
writ of error was prosecuted to the
United States supreme court. This
court holds that, by the act OF 1898.
Congress, in adopting it. considered the
twofold character OF our constitutional
government, and had in view the en-
lightened purpose so far as the pun
ish,nent Of crime was concerned. to
interfere as little as might be with
authority of the states on that subject
over all territory situated within their
boundaries, and which hence would be
subject to exclusive state Jurisdiction
but for the existence of the United
States In accomplishing these pur-
poses the statute, instead Of fixing by
its terms the punishment Of crimes
committed on such reservations which
were not previously provided for by
law Of the United States. adopted and
wrote in the state law, with the single
difference that the ofrense. altho pun
ishable as an offense against the United
States, was nevertheless punishable
only in the way and to the extent that
it would have been punishable II the
territory embraced by the reservation
remained subject to the jurisdiction OF
the state. Further, since the penal
code OF New York afforded adequate
means for Furnishing the offense in the
state courts, there was no necessity or
resorting to the courts Of the United
States for redress, and therefore the
court below was right in quas1ing the
indictment as not authorized by the act
The case Is reported in 81 Supreme
Court Reporter. 212. under the title
United States VS., Press Pub. Co.
FLUSHING OF STREETS.
Appellant, while walking along the
streets of Louisville, was suddenly
drenched by the bursting Of hose
which was being used by city employees
engaged In flsuhing the streets. A Sc
we're cold contracted thereby impaired
her health, whereupon she sued the
city for damages. The court of appeals
Of Kentucky in, Kippes vs. city OF
Louisville, 131 Southwestern Reporter,
184, holds that the city is not liable,
since the flushing Of the streets was a
public duty undertaken by the city in
the exercise of its government func-
tons for the promotion Of the health,
safety, and comfort Of dts inhabi tants
and the public generally, without profit.
NOSE-BITING Is MANNING
One Catsampas and John Proper
disagreed, and a fight followed. During
the fisticuff the former, in an ungentle-
manly manner, bit the latter's nose off,
exclaining, There, l have done some-
thing to you now, Joe, that you will
never get back in one hundred thou
sand years" "Joe" thought so, too, so
he had his aIssatlant prosecuted, and he
was convicted of manning. He ap-
peeled. and the supreme court of
Washington, in state vs.. Catsampas,
112 Pacific Reporter, 1116, holds chat
one who willfully bites off anot er's'
nose with intent to disfgure him vio-
lates the statute against manning.
BREACH OF CONTRACT.
"A contract or an unusual nature Is
the basis OF the suit entitled Barber
Va Greensfelder, In 1873 Southwestern
Reporter, los. PLAINTIFF had entered in
to written contract with one Berger.
agreeing to take over the latter's body
after death and have 1t cremated for
which plaintiff was to receive $500 out
OF Berger's estate. AT the time the
contract was executed both parties
lived at Rockford, Ill. Later Berger
went to ST. Louis. and while there
died in hospital. Plaintiff learned
of his death. and went to st. Louis to
obtain possession Of the remains and
have the same cremated. When he
arrived he found that parties had
acted on the old adage. "The early bird
catches the worm," for the public ad-
ministrator was in full charge of the
estate Of deceased, and an undertaken
was making preparation to reduce the
body to ashes. He then explained to
the undertaken, showed him the con-
tract, and stated that he was ready to
relieve him OF the unpleasa task The
undertaken refused to give up posses
sion Of the body. as he intended to
keep for his own use any profits de-
rived from the transaction. Plaintiff
s,,(k fpo