The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-12
CASES OF INTEREST

RESTAURANT KEEPER GUILTY OF LIQUOR NUISANCE When one goes into a restaurant and orders meal and liquor to accompany it, pay i, ing the waiter at the time for the li- quor, and the waiter goes to a sa- loon and purchases the -iquor Vt h such money and then brings it to the res .aurant and serves it, the Supreme Court of Iowa in Mullinnix V. Brown, 131 Northwestern Reporter, 671, holds that the restaurant keeper dispenses viding that one shah not manufac- ture, sell, exchange, barter, dispense, or give, in consI iteration of the pur- chase of any property or any services. any intoxicating liquors, and is there fore within the statute making one guilty of a nuisance who uses a build ing for any of the purposes prohibited by the Aforementioned statute.
 TOWN LIABLE FOR DOG BITE? The town of Littleton, Colo, has an ordinance that makes it unlawful, to permit any vicious dog to run at large therein, and requires it's marshal and police officers to kill any such dog. One Addington, a pedestrian in the dog knowingly permitted to run at large, sued the city because of the failure of its officers to enforce the or dinance, and on the theory that it was
 
 dition for travel. The Supreme Court of Colorado, in Addington vs. Town of Littleton, 115 Pacific Reporter, s 6ho1ds the city not liable on the ground that the duty imposed upon the marshal and police officers was imposed under the governmental powers of the town and because the duty to keep its streets in safe condition was limited to their construction and maintenance and excluded the use thereof.
 
 WALK IN" A sign reading as the above hung over the door of the ''Healer's" office in Denver, Colorado.
 He claimed his treatment was a nat said he could cure any disease medical men could and many they could not. He belonged to the church of "The Divine Scientific Healing Mission;" sick without the use of drugs or a knife; some he charged, some he did not; never turned any one away. He could not tell whether patients had gout, measles or rheumatism, but he could cure them-alI he had to do was !, to lay his hands upon them When out a license,'' he claimed to come within the exemption of the statute providing that the practice of the re- lligious tenets or general beliefs of any admir- stering drugs. should not be prohibited. The Supreme Court of i Co orado in Smith vs. People, IF Pa cif1c Reporter, SIP. in denying GHs' that the statute did not authorize O e, under cover of religion or religious ex- ercise. to go Into healing commercially for hire, using prayer as the curative agency or treatment, and that such I a practice was cthe practice of medi- cine within the plain meaning of the statute defining the, practice of medi- cine"
 |
 WHEN BIGAMY IS NOT BIGAAdY. l-Sophia Lotta first met W. D. Mar came to her house to sell spectacles- A few months ago he called again, and invited her to take a trip wi h him. She refused. hut stated that ! if he would marry her she was wi ling to go. He assented. and, after pro- curing a license, they sought out a | judge who "tied the knot.'' Sophia s honeymoon soon met with an eclipse, for she was soon informed that she was holding another's hubby" in ad- verse possession, for Martin had a11- other wife, prior one She thereup- on left him and went home to mother | A prosecution was next commenced ! against Martin for bigamy. His de l fenSe was that when he married So- | result of excessive drink: that hel wasn't drunk at the time, but that ftS previous intoxication bad so affeete1 1 his mind that it was left blank He | hnSW OI tAiC 4eSC ffb~h | he f'came to- he found a woman with him, and he asked her what she was doing there, and it was then he learn ed that he had been "encored." The | trial result ed in a convic Ton. On ap- peal, the Supreme Court of ArlanSaS 1n Martin vs. State, 129 Southwestern Reporter, 1122, holds that, while drunkenness will not excuse a crime. insanity, brought on by excessive drinking rendering one incapable of dis Tnguishing right from wrong, re- | lieves him from criminal responsihil- | ity, and, because the trial court d.d not submit this rule, the conviction is reversed.