Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-11-27

against the company on the ground OF
malpractice. The court held that. while
cooperation may be held liable on
its contract to furnish medical aid
where It was careless or negligent In
procuring Q proper physician. it can
not be liable as for malpractice be-
cause Of the physicians mistakes or
incomnetency..
EXPULSION FROM SOCIAL CLUB.
Does, the New York Constitution.
article !. section 5, providing that
every citizen may freely speak, write,
and publish his sentiments on all sub
jects, being responsible for the abuse
Of that right, and that no law shall
be passed to restrain the liberty Of
speech or Of the press, protect an
actor from being. expelled from his
social club Of actors for unduly at
tempting to follow In the footsteps of
Booth and to correct evils in the dra-
matte profession? No! it does not.
This IL q social club, whose equanim-
ity Is likely to be disturbed by such
things, and the sweet harmony and
concord Of the social music made un-
pleasant to the ear like the jangle
is no remedy for the expulsion except
in cases where there is moral cul-
pability tn- tina exercise of the clubs
paramount authority.~or where the
decision is arrived at from fraud. hos
tility. or bias. Barry VS.. The Players.
100 New York Supplement, 701.
TONGUE. TW1STERS.
Stephen ,YakaVicke and Launvias
notwithstanding were members OF a
club. PLAINTIFF in the case Of the above
parties. so Atlantic, Reporter. 81, was
charged by defendant with having pro-
cured q liquor license for the club for
$25 and had charged the club $27. The
in which he said the CLUB Is organ
ers. villains and SUCH" and signed
himself. your. cheated member" At a
subsequent meeting he arose and made
tell you of two OF those thieves and
robbers. There Is one (pointing at
plaintiff.) He cheated the club out
Of 81 in connection with the purchase
of, the liquor license" Plaintiff sues
for being slandered. The supreme
court >of Errors .pfs tconnecticut holds
actionable must charge a crime involv-
ing moral turpftuae, the words are
not actionable for they imputed. not
crime. but at most an act of cheat
ing. which was no more than to charge
that plaintiff trickeq or outwitted the
club.
JUDGE rERRoRIzEs ATTORNEYS.
Because the trial court, on the re-
$,,y iy,er ~ Inv 10
for instructions, said to the respect
Their requests in the presence Of the
exception to the courts statement.
They now claim that the courts state
men 10 overa wedy,xaem--put them in
such tefrdremltlidY they abandoned
their legal rights, and for the afore-
would have the Judgment reversed The
New York, in BSnd VS.. ,Bahr Truck
ing Company, 81 feew,sYork supple
ment, 49, holds that the record pre-
not believe that such was the result:
that if counsel felt aggrieved by the
courts statement, an exception should
court. could stand by and speculate
Tor reversal .of an adverse judg-
meYlt.'
Comfy AND CONTRACT.
The contrast between the constitu-
tional basis of the Canadian govern
ment and that Of the United States re-
Gently caused clash in the supreme
court Of New York in a life insurance
policy contest, with interesting results.
The charter OF a mutual benefit assoc
citation was changed by the Canadian
legislature, thereby necessitating an In
creased rate Of insurance to the i'm
pairinent of an insured's contract. This
the Legislature, could do, AS there are
no constitutional restrictions in that
country. forbidding the impairment Of
contract obligations by legislative en-
actments, 1t was commended on behalf
of the benefit association that foreign
corporation carries its charter where
ever 1t goes, that contracts made with
it are subject to all variations and
changes, which may be made In it's
charter by legislative enactment at the
place where created and therefore. in
the spirit OF comfy, the courts Of the
United States should recognize this
contract impairing power Of the gov
eminent Of Canada. The court held
that the rule CT comity'could not be fol-
lowed to the extent OF disregarding the
rules OF our state and federal consti-
tutions holding sacred contractual re-
lations. citing with approval kent's old
rule: 1.-THE laws Of other governments
have no force beyond their territorial
limits: and, il permitted to operate in
other states. it Is upon principle OF
comfy. and only when neither the
state nor It's citizens would suffer any
Inconvenience from the application OF
the foreign law 2 Kent, 4O6. Simme-
link US. Supreme Court l. o. 0. F.. 1870
New York Supplement, 500.
WORSE THAN BANQUO'S GHOST.
a much litigated case Is that OF
Hanrick VS.. Hanriclk. 1873 Southwestern
Reporter. 1922. The controlling issue
va~ tho richf NJ certain aJfonc m In