Mansfield mirror. (Mansfield, Wright County, Mo.) 1908-1957, 1913-07-17
Prosecutors Contract Declared
Against Public Policy.
Woman Was EnJoIned-verdict Of
Lone Star State Judge Who Trav-
eIed on a Railroad Pass Salts
fled His Conscience.

Chicago.-In a case before the su-
preme court Of Michigan involving
the division of the profits of a law
partnership, 1t appeared that the plain
tif was an attorney with an estab-
lished practice while the defendant
was a young lawyer with no expert
ence. Under an agreement by the
partners, when the plaintiff was pros
ecuting attorney he promised not to
run for office again, but to assist the
defendant to be elected. After de-
PENDANT was elected 1t was agreed
that the salary Of the defendant as
prosecuting attorney should be d.
vided between the lawyers. The court
holds that such a partnership contract
Is against public policy, because it
is In effect an assignment of the earn
ed emoluments of a public Office, and
Is void and unenforcible.
In support Of a recent application In
the supreme court in Brooklyn by a
wife for an Injunction against another
woman to restrain her from a~lienat-
Ing the affections Of the plaintiffs hus-
band a decision Of the Texas court
of appeals was cited. This case rose
out of a writ of habeas corpus sued
out by a man sent to jail for con-
tempt Of court for violating an injunc-
ton prohibiting him from associating
with the plaintiffs wife. The court
upheld the injunction and laid: THE
suit was brought for damages on an al
legged partial alienation of the affec-
lions of the plaintiffs wife, and It
was averred that on account of the
past conduct Of the defendant IN that
suit plaintiff vas apprehensive and
had just grounds to fear that by the
continuance thereof the wife's afec-
tons would be entirely alienated.
There would consequently be a breach
and destruction of the matrimonial
contract existing between the parties
by which plaintiff would entirely lose
the affections and services of his
said wife. These. 1t must be conceded,
were of peculiar value t. the plain
tiff; and 1t would seem that he would
have a right to invoke the restraining
power OF a court Of equity to prevent
the utter humiliation of his wife's
affections and the utter destruction OF
the marital agreement" The court
held that the hjunction did not vio-
late %unlawfully the defendants right
as a citizen or unlawfully interfere
with his freedom of speech.
fp1on,nnt ronAaraI hp Ta-n.
justice Of the peace, as reported by
Law Notes, Is in part as follows: I'm
the first place l am going to rule right
as I see 1t regardless of the fact that
the plaintiff johnson is a friend Of
mine. and the railroad company has
in the past issued me a pass and that
l hope to again ride on their road
free. There are two things evident
from the evidence. There is a lie out
somewhere, and a number Of turkeys
were killed on the G. H. & 8. A. Rail-
road company's right Of way. The
quail seer by the witnesses Ayers
and Scott must have been large ones.
or the chicken hens een by the wit
ness johnson must have been small
ones But, be that as 1t may, the num-
Der Of turkeys killed were about so.
and they were not fully grown. Again,
both parties were negligent-that is a
fact. The company for allowing grass
to grow on Its right Of way, and the
plaintiff for allowing his turkeys to
run upon the railway property. al.
though there is no law against tur-
keys running loose. Now, IL both
the company and Mr.. johnson were at
fault I do not see how either could
object to paying for his mistake.
Therefore, the railroad will pay Mr..
Johnson for killing his turkeys the
sum Of SIS. and Mr.. johnson will pay
the costs of the suit. In rendering
this judgment l have no apologies to
make and my conscience is clear. as
I believe l have done right. II l have
made a mistake / have done SO un-
consciously, but after weighing all the
evidence I feel that I am for nce
right. Do you? ]. Littleton Tally, ].
p. Pre-. No. /, Goliad county, Texas