The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-07-30
GASES OF INTEREST


 band ?-Lucy Potol<e brought an ac- ton for divorce against her husband Sam. in PoIolxe vs. Po1oke, 13O Pa cif1c Reporter, 53B. The. trial court rendered judgment for her for the divorce, AredufredA hereto pay her shusband in the sum of $50 per month during her 1ffe=tfn1e as a1imony, ana also required her to pay him an at torney fee of $1OO. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma holds that the judgment should be reversed, since the statute governing the power of the court to grant al1mOny makes no mention of the husbands right to a1- irnony,. and it cannot be presumed that it was the intention of the Legislature sfto allow him alimony.
 T in Gambling Hnsband and Wife were One.-As a result of certain gambling transaction, MT. Spiller smiled some of his hard earned wages into the pockets of MT. Close. MT SpiTIer thought: that what he had spill ed was spilled, but Mrs. SpiHer, prob ably thinking that some of the spill ed money had better have gone, to feed and cIothe the little Spr1erS' brought suit under a. statute providing that whoever, by gambling or oett1ns loses money or goods, and passes or delivers any part thereof may sue TOT and recover the same or the winner and if the loser does not within three months prosecute an action to recoV- e-AtI1e sam e, g ssaIly other person : may sIIes for and recover of the winner +xesofe the value of the same in such action, ha1fsto- his own use and half to tnestown But the Supreme Court Of - Maine in the case of Spil1er vs. Close, s6 Atlantic Reporter, IFS, held that Mrs, Spiller could not be considered as tsany other person. because the el- enentary rule of common faW that the legal identity of the wife WaseSI1s- pended or merged in. that of the -hus-' band was not, as to that particular rIsss, of cases, removed by statute. In concluding it's opinion the court said 1t 5s the opfnion of the court that the action at ,haF,iFSn not E2aiRtainable in the name Of this 7plaintff, and that If the Legislature deemed it consist ent with sound reason, domestic peace, and a wise public policy to confer upont married women generally, or the wife of the loser in particular, the right Ito prosecute sz1ch an action, the result would have to- be accom- plished by an express enactment for that purpose.
 BuRoonery in Br4efs.-In Loehr vs. Dickenson, 139 Northw estern Report CT 407, respondent filed a brief in support of a motion for a rehearing in that case, which according to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, was t+at least entitled sto be met by serious. ar szument'' instead of so meeting it. the appellant filed a brief consisting of nineteen pagest of printed matter, 8 great part of which the appellate
 court says can only be characterized as bufoonery Because of this, the court sremarks:k %tAn occasional play of wit is refreshing and sometimes H. illuminating, even in a, legal argument; but a brief is 4properIy a, field for the exercise of the highest reasoning pow ers and not for the exploitation of literary vaudeville @zeThe serving and. sidered as trff1fng with counsel and with the court It will be stricken from the files, and no costs will be- taxed for printing it
 Troubles of Phi1antIropfst. = In the case of Perry Public Library As sociation vs Lobs4tz, 130 Pacific Rel porter, g19, we have an example of the troubles of p11f1anthropist in get ting an adequate return for the mon ey he d1speses of - It appeared in5 tfris -case that on petition from the citizens and officers of the City of Perry, Oklahoma, MT. Andrew Carne- gie was induced to- donate BIO, 1000 with which to erect a public library building The building was duly erect ed and a library installed Soon af- ter the city council undertook to use the library ibufEdingf as the city hall, to establish therein&- the. office. of the mayor, clerk, the chambers off the city council and the office of police judge, and in addition thereto to use a DOT ton of said building for commercial club purposes, and as a general con vention hall. Certain citizens of Perry sought to procure injunction to prevent this. and the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, reversed a decis- ion of the lower court and granted vented the economical city officials from working MT. Carnegie far 8 do- nation to be used in a manner he nev- CT intended @s..~4.= .s-~..
 Physical Pecu1iarfties Affecting Ad- nr1ssibfIity of DemonstFatfve Evidence Although science has long since taught us that the physical makeup of every human being is distinguish able and totally dissinilar from the rest of humanity, from our features even to our finger prints, the lines of whlebi df4er lin ayerx speIspn, it has been left for the Court of Appeals of Colorado to apply the principle, in a sense at least, to the admission of evidence In Daniels vs. Stock, f9O Pacific Reporter, 1031, plaintiff, 8 wo- man, recovered a judgment for $2,OO0:l in the lower court, on account of an alleged wound on the front part of her leg between the knee and the ankle, which she claimed to have re- cefved while bathing in one of defen- danf's bathtubs in a public bathFfouse, caused by defendants negligence in permitting a rough-eoged piece of copper, covered with dirt and verdi gris to protrude from the lining of the tub in such a way as to infiict a wound which she alleges resulted in blood poisoning. On the trial, defen- -dant offered a demonstration bv a man in a bathtub for the purpose of show ing that it was impossible for a per son to receive a scratch on the fore part of the leg, between the knee and the ankle, from a. defect such as was alleged to exist in this case. Was 4fa demonstration rrnner and if mi