The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-01-14

the way of a ship in midst of the
sea; and the way of man with a
maid. -
BRAVERY REwARDED.-If a per
son rescues or. unsuccessfully Attempts
| to rescue one who Is in peril, may he
tempt, from the one whose negligence
| inperiled the life of the rescued per
son? This question has lately been
before the Supreme Court Of Mime
sofa in a case where plaintiff, ser
want of a mining company, attempted
to save a fellow servant, who, not
having been warned of the dangers of
blasting with dynamite, had placed
| himself in peril = close to a lighted
fuse. Realizing that the man was
in great danger, plaintiff left a, place
calling him in the meantime, for the
purpose of reScuing him. He was too
late. The charge of dynamite ex-
ploded. The man about to be rescued
was killed and plaintiff was seriously
injured. In an action against the min
ing company, Perpich VS.. Leetoia Min
ing Co., 137 Northwester Reporter, II,
the court rules, in answer to the above
question that a, recovery will lie, pro-
viding that the act of attempted res
cue be not one of extreme reckless
act was so reckless and rash as to
constitute contributory negligence or
assumption Of risk, the court holds
were issues of fact for the jury. The
in assuming greater risks in the pro-
lection of human life than would be
sustained under other circumstance
Sentiments of humanity applaud the
act, the law commends it, Verdict
for plaintiff is affirmed.
PUSHING AS DIsORDERLY COM
DUCT.-Pushing and jo%stling are a
pair of twins that are all acquaint-
ed with. Lives there person VINO
has not been a victim of them? When
wins RI a
public conveyance we meet them, be it
elevator, street car, or train. Men,
have lost their tempers; they have led
to bitter words, and have often trans
formed men into MAD warriors In
People VS.. Cohen, 1876 New York Sup
daughter were on a shopping tour.
Com plainant carried on her arm a bag
of the kind usually carried by woIn-
en-. containing currency and bills to
the amount of $35. In one of the
stores where they shopped, they en-
tered an elevator and went to the sec
it was necessary for complainant to
step in a, diagonal or sideWise direc-
ton from behind the operator, so as
to face the door. At this instant, an
in1peded her progress, and jostIed and
pushed her. After leaving the eleva-
tor complainant discovered that her
bag was open, and that the money had
disappeared. Detectives were placed
on the case, resulting in the arrest of
two women, defendants in the above
the two who were on the elevator with
complainant, and one of whom pushed
her when about to leave the. car. They
were charged with diSOrderly conduct
tending to a breach of the peace. The
vital question submitted to the New
York Magistrates Court is whether
these facts justify conviction. The
language of the court follows: I'm the
indecent crowding, to which we
all subjected, in the transit facilities
of this city, below, above and on the
and jostled more or less unintention-
ally by others. But there is no doubt
in my mind that under the law, where
the jost1ing and pushing even in those
cases Is intentional and deliberate, that
it constitutes a dfsorderly act.
am satisfied beyond a reasonable
lowed the complainant and her daugf-
ter into the elevator for the purpose
of robbery; that the defendant Cohen,
deliberately and with intention to do
So stepped in front of her, jostled
and assaulted her, and impeded her
progress in leaving the elevator, for
defendant stern was confederated with
her and therefore that they are both
principals to the transaction; and I
find them guilty
LIMITATIONS AGAINST INDIvD-
UAL DEBT OF ADMINISTRATOR
TO ESTATE.-ln the case of Long VS.
Long, "a Atlantic Reporter, 375, the
Court of Appeals of Maryland was
called upon to pass on the question of
the duty of administrator to in
clude in the schedule of assets a debt
due by himself to the estate which
the statute of limitations had run it's
course. The court cites two or three
other cases on the subject, and says:
This position is in analogy to the ia
miliar doctrine that the law will not
recognize the inability of a debtor to
an estate to pay the amount of his in
debtednesS when he is also the eXecu-
tor or administrators, but requires him
to charge himself with the amount of
such indebtedness and account for it
as an asset which is in his hands,
even though the debtor may be wholly
unable to pay the debt The conclu-
sion is reached that the statute of linn
Ito fi017S iS no RI