Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-02-13
important Decisions
fThs following notes oe cases are
from the West Publishing Company.
St Paul Mimi

AAo oItdSuISO VI xASuIuCNy pAVSAOS
that no civil officer. with certain ex-
ceptions not necessary hero to bs emu
merated. shall serve ~ grand juror.
Section 500 of the revised statutes OF
the United States makes the COM
potency Of Jurors in courts Of tho
United States dependent on their COM
potency in the highest court of law
of the particular state in which the
proceeding is held. One Shaw was in
! dicted and tried in the district court
Of the United States for the western
district Of Kentucky for an onense
against the postal laws. Upon appeal
to the circuit court of appeals for the
Sixth circuit. one Of his alleged grounds
for reversal related to the competency
of one Of the grand jurors who was
practicing attorney. Shaw claimed
that he was incompetent on the ground
that as an attorney he was a civil Of
ticer. as that term Is used in the Ken
lucky statutes above referred to. This
contention was overruled by the court
OF appeals. which held that. while at
torneys may be in a sense Quasi-public
officers, they are not 50 in the common
; understanding OF mankind and should
NOT be so considered in passing on their
competency as jurors. See Shaw vs..
United States, $50 Federal Reporter.
! 34S
FAILURE TO SHIP CORPSE.
/, An extraordinary case is found re-
/ ported in 1870 Southwestern. 1925. en-
{, titled Pacific Express Co. vs.. Gathright
Ii Is shown that appellee's husband died
(, in Ell Paso. Tex, on Dec. 4. 1907, at
! hotel, and the control OF the corpse was
turned over TO a firm OF undertakes
an AT The
.,ndertakers had Information that the
wife OF deceased resided in Fort Worth
and acting thereon. he advised the ex-
press aEen, OF appellant Of the death
and the amount Of under,aker's charges,
and azked him TO have the agent a, r.
Worth arrange with the wife for the
shipment OF the corpse. The agent at
Fl. Worth. upon receiving the message
(Which mentioned no undertakes
ci,arges,. telegraphed back. FORWARD
! corpse. collect charges guaranteed
The agent at Ell Paso after receiving
this reply, notified the undertakers. who
still held the body. that it was guar
anty Of express charges only. The
underiakers tilereupon refused 10 de-
liver or ship the same until their
charges were satisfied or arranged for
Appellee did not know that the body was
not shipped till the 9th of the month.
when she went TO FL Paso, paid the
undertakers' charges. and buried her
husband there. She then instituted this
action again the express company 10
recover damages for failing TO promptly
ship the body. The court of civil appea Is
OF Texas holds that TO effectuate con-
trac, OF shipment the wife should have
first satisfied the undersaker's charges.
and i. is not the legal duty OF the carrier.
in anticipation OF the shipment, to itself
either pay or guarantee them for the
shipper The undertakers were neces-
eary parties 20 any agreement to ship
on her guaranty OF their charges, and
any agreement she made with appellant,
in anticipation Of the shipment. TO send
c. o. D. the under1akers' charges, was
conditional upon the consen. Of the an
derakers TO deliver the corpse for ship
men, upon appellee's guaranty OF pay
at destination. There was, then. no con-
tract and damages were not allowed.
INSANITY DEF ENSE FOR CRIMES.
May one accused OF crime be branded
as a felon without any consideration
whatever by the jury of the question
Of his insanity at the time OF commit
ting the act charged against him? The
Washington state legislature passed a
Law providing that insanity was no de-
Tense 10 a charge of crime. The SUI
preme court of Washington in state
vs.. Strasburg. 10 Pacific Reporter,
/ 1920, holds that the statute is violative
Of the constitutional right OF trial by
fury, since its effect is to take from the
jury the question Of criminal intent.
The right of trial by jury" says Judge
Parker, means something more than
the observation Of the mere form OF
trial by jury, else the legislature could
by a process OF limitation in defining
crime or criminal procedure entirely
destroy the substance OF the right OF
limiting the question Of fact to be sub
mitted to the jury. It means that the
accused has the right to have the jury
pass upon every substantive TACT go
/ ing to the question OF his guilt or in
nocence. II accused was insane at
the time he committed the act charged
/! against him to the extent that he could
not comprehend the nature and quality
Of the actin other words, il he had
no will to control the physical act OF
his physical body-how can it in truth
be said that the act was his act
! ADVERTISEMENT a LOTTERY?
( A newspaper containing an adver-
tisement of contest offering prizes
! for the best essay on the name OF Il
1 certain breakfast food was refused car
rage in the mails. on the ground that
the advertisement was one Of lottery.
The United States circuit court in
1 Brooklyn Daily Eagle vs. VOORHEES,. ls1
Federal Reporter, SO, holds that
whether or not such an advertisement
| is q lottery depends upon whether OF
not the prize is dependent upon lot
/ or chance To escape such condernna-
i ton. the offer must be made and car
| ried out in good faith, the prize award
! ed On the merits, and the advertise
ment contain sufficiently definite
statement Of what the word best
means as used therein to advise COM
petitors Of the standard Of judging.
! The postmaster was enjoined from re-
T! fusing to accept the newspaper if any
advertisement therein did not appear
I on its face to be. or did not prove In
practice to be, a lottery within the linn
!; its of this decision.
J CORN WHISKY.
| Plaintiff, a lumberman, telegraphed
for four gallons Of whisky for his raft
/ hands. The telegram was misdirected
thru the fault Of the telegraph agent.
no whisky arrived, and the raft hands
,Afnsad 70 work freshet was at its