The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-12-06
CASES OF INTEREST

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CLOUDS It was held by the Supreme Court of State vs Howard, 147 Southwestern Reporter 95. where it was sought to discredat the testimony of a witness running from the burglarized building by showing that the moon was low and the morning in question cloudy. sna te'ssefor ,dans m hays n,, been ,a a'ne net be taken of the existence of clouds in the sky at any given time.
 DIeCOvERY.-In Wilson vs. New
 England Navigation Co.,. 1S7 Federal Reporter, S8, 1t was held by the Unit
 ed States District Court for the East l ern District of New York that a fed
 eral court may, under the New York l statutes, require the defendant in an 1 action by a. servant for personal in- | fury alleged to have been caused by a. | defective appliance to produce such appliance for plaintifrs inspection,
 saying that c-to deny the motion for inspection might enable the defendant not only to prevent the plaintiff s proving his case, if he has one, but
 might never find out or satisfy the
 court that he has any case to pEove.'' l CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON LA BOR QUESTION. A question of grave importance to labor organiza- tions we'll as to every workingma.n,
 
 highest tribunals of two states Two statutes, nearly identical in terms, each making 1t a. criminal act to lcoerce any person to enter into any
 member of any labor organization as a condition of such person securing em- ployment or continuing in his em- ployment, have been passed upon, end we are confronted with the anomalous situation of one statute being upheld and the other declared unconstitution- a SAA0f1nf1 n. nesota, Ls declared invalid in State ex rel. Smith va. Daniels. 136 Northwest ern Reporter. 5S4, beca use it violates Const. U. s. Amend. fl, prohibiting any
 state from depriving any person of life, liberty. or property without dJre | process of law; the court holding that thereby protected include the employ 1 CTS right to contract for the purchase cision of the United States Supreme Court in Adair vs. United States, 2S 1 Sup Ct. PIT, wherein the court held
 that an act of Congress similar to the | statutes here involved was inva- | sion of personal liberty, we'll of l the right of property and unenforce-
 able The conclusion is that the
 criminal complaint states no cause of | action and therefore defendant is dis l charged. The other statute recently
 constructed is Gen. St. of Kansas 1909. i Coppage, 125 Pacific Reporter, S. The
 Supreme Court of Kansas differs with
 the Supreme Court of Minnesota. not 1 withstanding both statutes are prac- 1 tica1ly the same. The court holds that an employer has no inherent right to ! coerce an employe to enter into such i contract, and so the Lsgisla ture, deem 1 ing such coercion against public policy, i violated no constitutional rights of en- l plOyers in the enactment of the stat ute. This court considers the Mime 1 sota decision and concludes that the 1 Adair Case did not support it and has
 no application to the case at bar. The 1 conviction is affirmed. The court says 1 ''-rhe state has the right to protect l the freedom and independence of en- pIOyes from any encrOachInent there on and make such encroachInent a criminal offense whenever in the judg- ment of the Legislature such encroach- ment constitutes a. wrong upon the public generally, as when one makes