The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-02-08

VaudeV1lle' s Eunn1eSt h1OnC sl1a1l call that man to account for the goods to be transported which he did not deliver, and that man shall de- liver to the owner of the transported goods fvefo1d the amount which was given to- him. *' If a man hire an OK for a. year, he shall give to it's owner gI1f- of grain as the hire of Q draft OK, and 3 gur of grain as the hire of an OK. If a. man hire a sail boat he shall give 21z se Of silver as it's hire. If man hire 2 grain per day If he hire an ass to tf1resh, 10 ka of grain is it's 11ire.' Nu-
 nerous other instances from this an cient code could be cited, the prin- cfp1e of regulation is not new, but has come down to us from ancients. 7
 DUELING OATH FOR JUDGES The old adage that a drowning man will grasp at a straw, is borne out in Harness V. State, 149 Southwestern Reporter, 911. Defendant was found guilty of the unlawful sale of liquor without a, license The case was tried by a. special judge, who was elected in the absence of the regular judge. The clerks entry upon the minutes 1ar1y held, but did not show that he took the oath prescribed by one sec tioh of the Code, which provides that every public officer shall take an oath
 
 since the adoption of the Constitu- ton. Defendant on appeal urges that the failure of the clerks entry to show that this oath against d1eling was ad- ministered to the judge renders all proceedings in that court void and of no effect, and that for this reason new trial should be granted him. The Supreme Court Of Tennessee rules as follows: ''It cannot be conceived in what manner his failure to take the due1ing oath in fact affected the judge was sworn to administer i'm partial justice in the case and did so. His failure to take the dueling oath did not in any way bear upon the dis position of this cause. In other words the omission to administer this oath to the special judge was an error which does not touch the merits Of this case.'' Judgment is affirmed.
 A sSNARL ON THE FACE IS NOT CONTEMPT.-Petit in Ex parte Wdnn. 150 Southwesbern Reporter. 39s- is an attorney at law who seeks to have a conviction for contempt oVer- turned. Some time prior to the occa- sion in question the police judge of from the bench, in the absence of pe- titioner, the Iatters suspension from the right to practice his profession in that court. On the following morn ing petitioner entered the courtroom while the court was in session, and took his seat inside of the railing, where space was reserved for attof- neys and officers of the court. The judge, observing his presence, direct ed him to leave, saying, tsGet out of here. You have been disbarred.'' Or, Didn't you know you had been disbar- red from this court?'' Petitioner inn fnediately arose, and in a some ewhat excited and embarrassed manner and tone of voice, replied, according to his own testimony, Well, judge, I want to do what is right, and don't know what this is about, but if I am charg- ed with anything would like to have a hearing" The judge thereupon cit ed him for contempt, imposed a fine, and petitioner was at once taken in ing all of the witnesses. except the police judge. stated that they observed nothing disrespectflM in petitioners manner or tone of voice. The judge however, testified that petitioner had 8 '.snarl' on his face and that he dn- ed him for his contemptuousi look and for dfsobeying the orders Of the court. There is nothing in the testimony whatever, not even that of the judge himself that petitioner refused to obey the order of the court. The only pos the alleged manner of facial eNpres- sion of petitioner. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas the judg- rnef1t of conviction is quashed, the disrespectful manner or tone of voice may constitute such conduct as amounts to contempt or court; put 1n- depreciation of the expression on all- others face, especially that of one who is surprised, excited, or embarrassed, as practically all the witnesses agree was the condition of petitioner at this time, is a matter about which obServ CTS may easily be mistaken, and when, as in the present instance, only one out of many witnesses could discern disrespectfuI look on the face of the accused, hesitate about sustain ing a punishment hastily inflicted. B vI,- 1@ vinced that neither. the manner nor conduct of the petitioner on the oeca- sion named was diSrespectful to the court, and that there existed no ground for adjudging him to be in contempt
 CORPORATION PREYS. BUT PRAYS NOT. An example of how an attorney in his zeal and a.rdor to win record in argument and say very "hard' words is shown in First Ma tional Bank vs. Solzolslzi, 150 South western Reporter, 312. Counsel for ap- pellee in addressing the jury used the following language: ftGentlemen of the jury when you come to make up your verdict, I pray you-and just here beg your pardon for calling your at- tention that I may pray, and you may pray, but the defendant, which is a corporation, never prays; it cannot pray, pray; it always p-r-e-y-s, upon the rights of the people with whom it comes in contact" Counsel was then f'ebuked and warned by the court which, in it's charge, expressly instructed the jury to disregard this