The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-10-22
CASES OF INTEREST

The Esazor as a Deadly Weapon Every race and clan is associated with some particular instrument of combat. We are familiar with the Russian and his bomb. the Italian with his sti1etto, the Indian with his bow and arrow, the Irishnan with his brick, woman with her tears, and the negro with his razor- Conf1ning ourselves chiefly to the razor, all are ugly weapons we must admit, but are they deadly weapons2 The case of Brown vs. State,s 62 Southern Reporter, 353, IS in point Owing to the fact that this case halls from the Sunny South, the state of Mississippi, and owing. to the prevalence of a certain duslxy race which congregates and abides in the land of cotton, coupled with the we'll settled common Knowledge that the razor is their favorite weapon, it might well be reckoned that the court had no hesitancy in declaring the ra- zor a deadly weapon But not so. The Supreme Court of Mississippi in the above-mentioned case, in review $ ing the cohvictio4 of a boy about z13 years of age charged with unlawfu1Iy carrying concealed "a certain deadly weapon. to wit, a razor,'' which he tes- tified his aunt had given him to have sharpened after she had cut her corns with it, holds that a razor is not a deadly weapon within the meaning of the statute Quoting the court: 'In some sections of the land it may be the habit or custom of certain class for the purpose of using it in com bat The time may come when it will be so generally used as an instru- nent fn combat as to cause the Legis- lature to include it in the names of deadly weapons which shall not be carried concealed; but we cannot de- eide that it is so included now"
 
 Trial Marriages UpheId.-In New York state a woman under the age of IS years. and who has separated from her Husband before arriving at the age of IS years, may maintain an ac- ton to. annul her marriage under the Code of Civil Procedure, and this though her parents consented to the marriage according to the case of plements 142- There the plaintiff brings action to annul her marriage to the defendant on the ground. that at the time of the consummation there of she was and still is under the age of legal consent The license for the marriage was granted upon the legal consent of her mother. The evidence showed that at the time of her mar riage she was exactly IT years of age. She left her husband one month there after, and has not since cohabited with him The Supreme Court. speciaId
 
 znits infant who narrfes under the age of IS years with the consent of her parents, and who subsequently, leaves her husband before she arrives at that age. to come into court and as a matter of course obtain a decree of annuIment- Judgment annuIIine the marriage is granted, the court re- marking in conclusion that the statute to all intents and purposes provides for trial marriages, *'but it is d eondi zezr7rr Fr.z- -s--z. khe Legislature and not with the court-''
 Limitation of Liability of Owners of Hstantc.-Subseque to the issuance of monit1on and injunction order on petition for limitation of liability, and after receiving a copy thereof. one R began an action in the state court to recover for the death of one of the victims of the Titanic disaster. An order to. show cause was obtained why B should not be punished for con tempt On the return day of this or Her motions were made by others in ferested personally or as representa- lives asking that the said injunction be modified so to permit claimants 10 begin actions at common law but 1 providing that after commencement 1 Thereof further proceedings should be 1 Btayed until determination of the question of limitation of liability In 1 The Titanic. 2o4 Federal Reporter, 295 l Inc court held that the institution of l the proceeding for limitation of IabiI- 1 fly vested the admiralty court with | Full and exclusive Jurisdiction, not | Dnly to determine the right of peta- i dener to limitation of liability, but in | Ease of denial of such right, to enforce | the rights of claimants in full. and l motions to modify the inJuncttonal or l Her restraining the commencement or | prosecution by claimants of suits in | sthereeurts were denied. | Rights of Negroes to Burial in Gem | eteries-W neither cemetery corpora l lions may exclude negroes from burial | ls the question directly involved in l People vs. Forest Home Cemetery Co., o I Northwestern Reporter, 219. The as&ertal facts aFet The appellee cem- |