Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-03-06
Important Decisions
fine following notes Of cases are
from the West Publishing Company.
St Paul MINI

BREACH OF PROMISE AND TEARS.
a breach OF promise case. may be-
come very pathetic. at times, as shown
in Poe vx. Arch, 1873 Northwestern Re-
porter, 1856 This action was brought
by Annie Poe 10 recover $4,000 for
having been subjected to great mental
anguish and bodily suffering by rea-
son Of the failure OF defendant to curry
out his marriage promise. In the hover
court she was allowed 5000, and the
case comes up on appeal in the supreme
court Of South Dakota 1t appears that
plaintiff has q small child, and during
the argument OF council she (plain-
iin) tainted and became unconscious.
She was carried to an adjoining room
in the court house, and during her
fatnung spell she cried out. %. my
baby darling" The presiding judge,
becoming sympathstic, and while counI
sci was yet arguing. left the bench and
went in TO the woman, who was being
cared for by . physician. Defendant
urges that the court erred in denying
his motion for q new trial on the
ground Of plaintiffs misconduct in
weeping and fainting and the irreg-
ulartty OF the trial Judge. The court
holds that the conduct Of counsel and
parties during q trial are matters with
in the supervision and discretion of
the trial court. and that this discretion
was not abused an the present instance.
The rule that the trial judge must be
present during the argument IL held
sufficiently complied with because the
Judge Is not bound TO listen to every
word of che argument providing he re-
mains within hearing limits and can At
any time assert authority. Since the
record did not chow that he was out OF
hearing or where he could not instantly
have controlled any improper conduct.
the rule was not transgressed. Tho
judgment denying a new trial was Af-
firgned.
COLONIAL ORDINANCE OF 1914.
An unusual decision involving the
quaint old laws OF the early colonists.
and tho manner In which the common
laws OF England inst took ats root In
America. 10 reported In II Atlantic Re-
porter, 03S, entitled Conant vx. Jordan.
The facts are: Plaintiffs claim to be
the owners Of Great Pond. In the state
Of Maine, OF the sol! underneath II. and
of the adjoining lands. They seek to
enjoin the defendants from entering
upon the pond and from fishing and
shooting upon it, Defendants claim that
l tie public pond. upon which the
public has the right Of free fishing and
free fowling. This Is the issue. Great
Pond contains more than ten ceres,
and comes within the terms Of the CO.
ionial ordinances OF 1e4l-47. which pro-
! vides that every inhabitant that 10 an
householder shall have free fishing and
sowhng in any great ponds" This was
amended in 1e47 SO that towns were
forbidden to appropriate ITO any par
t.cular person any great pond contain.
ing ten acres Of land" and giving ev-
cry man the right % FISH and fowl
| there. and may pass and repaas thru
any mans property for that end, %
they tfespass not upon any mans corn
or meadow" The question arose as to
whether the ordinance applied. since 1t
the time n was adopted none Of the
territory now embraced Within the
l state OF Maine Wa part Of the Mas
sachusstts bay colony which passed the
ordinance. The supreme judicial court
Of Maine holds that the principles Of
the ordinance have become q part of
the common Law. md were extended to
| Maine when inst province became q
! part OF Massachusetts under the prov
ince charter OF 1857. Tne cuu1t s.uids