The Mankato free press., 1913-07-25

oughly"
for a short visit, but all of the other
men returned last night
From Fridays. Daily.
,t.In the published Ceases OF Inter
est" the West Publishing company
notes this one: Who is an unmar
ried woman? This is the pivotal
question in People V. Weinsteck,
14O New York Supplement, 453,, a
seduction case, in which under the
statute defining. the crime it de-
yolyed upon the state to show that
the prosecutrix was unmarried. The
facts. are: The prosecutrix was mar
ried in 1901 in New York, where
she lived with her husband for
period Of one year. Soon, thereafter
he deserted her, and ever since his
Whereabouts have been unknown.
She has never heard from him or
about him and does not now know
whether. he be living or dead. but
went away with another woman. In
1911 she charged defendant in the
above action with seduction under
the Penal Law protecting 'unmar
ried women, etc. The city magis-
ttrate's court of New York City holds
that an unmarried" female is not
necessarily one never married, but
inclndes widows and divorced wom-
en-, especially in view of the use Of
the comprehensive word female"
which includes all unmarried wom-
ZEN, whether spinsters, widows, or di
vorcees. The next question which
presents itself then is, Is she a
widow under the rule by which dis
appearance gives rise to a presump-
tion of death? The court answers
| that the common-law presumption of
death after. a lapse of years is not
sufficient in a criminal prosecution,
and no conviction for crime should
be had on mere suspicion or on
presumption of the existence of the
| fact for which there is no basis.
| Mere disappearance does not give
rise to the presumption of death,
and where, as in this case, the hus-
| band of the prosecutrix left sup
| posedly with another woman, it can
| hardly be expected that he. would
make his whereabouts known to any
one. The complaint is dismissed,
and defendant ordered discharged. !.
Consumption Grounds for Divorce.
Consumption as ground for di-
yorce. Is a disease such as pulmon.
ary consumption a sufficient cause
| for separation mensa ct -thoro?
In Abramowitz ". Abramowitz, 14O
New York Supplement, 275, the par
ties intermarried in 1912 and the
| wife returned to her parents after
five days. The wife's action for
separation is based on the ground
of cruelty and conduct rendering it
unsafe for her to cohabit with the
defendant in that his state of health
is such that it is impossible, un-
safe and unhealthy for her to CO.
habit with him." She says that he
is troubled with violent cough at
night accompanied by expectoration
Of blood and that the physician call
ed in attendance stated that it "was
caused by hemorrhages. The New
York Supreme Court, Special Term,
says: Assuming for the sake of
the argument that the facts point
to the existence in the defendant of
the disease commonly known as pull
monary consumption, which is very
generally held to be both commun-
icable and dangerous to health, its
existence prior to the time of the mar
riage is not claimed, nor that any
false representations as to the de-
PENDANTS state of health were made,
SO as to induce the plaintiff to wed,
though, of course, had there been,
lit would not be available in the
present form of action The plain
tiff apparently had an ample op-
portunity for making Inquiries as to
the health of the defendant before
marriage as she had as to his earn
ling capacity. Perhaps the exercise
of as great caution regarding the
FORMER as was paid to the latter
| consideration would have saved both
narties trouble and unhappiness.
The holding of the court is thus
summarized in the following lines:
/ "If during marriage disease attacks
zone of the spouses, it Is not the
one SO afflicted who is guilty of
Illegal cruelty. 1t is rather the other
one who seeks on that ground a
| judicial separation"
I:Frbrn Fridays Daily.
2 Today was resignation day for the
annual school election and the regis