The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1911-04-06
RgegNT couaT DECISIONS.

rupt politician to attain the desired
election result. One ground for con
test is that the republican manager.
induced on Brown to run as a demo
cratic candidate, and to adopt as hi.
emblem the usual emblem of tn,
| democratic party, gamecock; thi:
being done to mislead the illiteratt
democrtic voters. who, being in the
habit of voting under the emblem o.
| their party, would do so in this cast
| when they saw the rooster, and, as s
result, their votes would be diverted
from the Fusion ticket, to the mani
fest advantage of the republican can
didates. Fraud and bribery ruled
the day, and were as openly carried
on by all parties and with as little
apparent desire for cOncealment as
religious services are conducted In
churches. One party was as guilty
as the other, though the republican
party. which was victorious. had the
largest corruption fund. The Ken
lucky Court of Appeals says: There
il no room in this case for the phil
osophy of the political casuist, who
having accepted money from both
sides for his vote, justifies his finally
voting for the one who paid the small.
err sum by saying that he desired to
uphold the party which was least
corrupt. There is no more dangerous
enemy to government by the people
than the crime of bribery. The cor
rupt use of money not only saps the
moral integrity of the weak and va
cillating, but ii discourages the up
right and strong. A good citizen can
not we'll be blamed if he ceases TO
be interested in an election where
his vote can count for nothing or be
offset by the vote of the purchased
chattel of the political corrsption-
ist." The Judgment of the trial court
setting aside the election as invalid
was affirmed"
- -. -
We have heard of carpet lacks
performing various duties outside of
those for which they were intended.
Some have stepped on them with
bare feet, and many a schoolma am
has sat on them; but the case of
Hunt v. Rhodes Bros. Co., in 92
Northeastern Reporter, 1901, goes
one better. Mrs. Hunt wanted to
give a dinner party, so she gave her
husband 50, and sent him out for
leg of lamb. He promptly went to
the butcher shop. told the salesman
his wife wanted a nice leg of lamb,
paid for it, and brought it home. His
wife while preparing to serve it, re-
ceived certain injuries complained
of in this action, which, it appeared,
were caused by a double-pointed car
pet tack barbed at both ends, which
was embedded in the meat. Two &C
tons were tried, one by the husband
and one by the wife, verdict being
rendered for each. The question on
appeal is whether the husband was
acting as agent for the wife. The
supreme court of Massachusetts
holds that the relation OF husband
and wife does not prevent a man
from acting as agent for his wife,
and the evidence warranted Ending
that Hunt, in buying the meat, was
his wife's agent. The exceptions of
defendant were overruled.
- - -
One Maxi Erjauschek was employ
ed as a maid in a certain household,
her duty being, among other things,
to look after the lady of the house.
Upon one occasion, while so employ
ed, she went out for an automobile
ride together with her employer and
his wife. BY reason of the chauf-
feur's negligence the car ran into a
tree, they were all thrown out, and
the maid was injured. She sued and
recovered. Defendant appeals, the
question involved for review being
the maid and the chauffeur
were fellow servants. In the case
entitled Erjauschek v. Kramer, 1875
New York Supplement, page 2S9, the
New York Supreme Court holds that
the relationship of fellow servants
existed, so that the maid assumed
the risk from the drivers negligent
act. The court assumes that her
presence in the automobile was Incl
dent to her employment, and her en-
ployment subjected her to the risk.
The Judgment was reversed and
new trial ordered.
According to mathematics as taught
in the little red school house. ! day
equals "a hours, but for defendants
in the cases OF McGinsey v. State and
Mobiles v. State. day equals Al
years for McGinsey and 40 years for
So authorities differ. They
were each convicted of robbery, and
given, respectively, 40 and Al years
in the penitentiary; but because the
man who drew up the Indictment had
not committed to memory the old
adage. Thirty days hath September"
ETC.. they appeal, for the Indictment
alleges the offenses to have been
committed on February 20. 1910. The
Court OF Criminal Appeals of Texas
holds that this Is an impossible date
and is not sufficient allegation OF
time to comply with the statute,
which requires that there shall be
some particular date mentioned. The
were dismissed