Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-06-09

It has been well said: L.
| WHO happy and not eloquent of love?
| Who pure and. as 1t is true.
Not temple where its glory ever
| dwells,
Where burn its fires and beams its
perfect eyer
Illicit love is exactly tie reverse Of
all this. The imagination can not con-
ceive. and language can not describe,
the blackness and despair, the degrade
ton, shame, misery, suffering. and woe
which 1t brings to the innocent as we'll
as to the guilty. 1t is like fire taken
from the very furnace of hell 1t burns
up, consumes. and destroys all that is
pure and noble in the hearts of men
! and women. 1t sinks them In unutter-
able infamy in this world. and prepares
them only for perdition in the life be-
yond the grave
! MONKEY FERAE NATURAE.
Plaintiff "monkeyed' with a monkey,
and hence this case-Copley vs. Willis,
152 Southwestern Reporter, $40. Plain.
tiff is boy 1S years cd. On the day
| in question he visited q combination
motion picture theater and museum
J conducted by defendant, where a mon
key was running at large without re-
I
feed this monkey, encountered it him
self and began feeding it peanuts.
While so doing, the monkey dropped
one peanut, which plaintiff stopped to
! pick up, when the animal ran at him
| and bit him upon the calf OF the leg.
For this injury he sues. The court of
! civil appeals of Texas holds that Il
monkey is an animal ferae naturae. or
! Il wild nature or disposition, and
! within the rule requiring the keeper
! of such animals to so keep them as to
! absolutely prevent their injuring an
/! other. and making him BILE for such
! injury unless the other vas voluntarily
/ responsible for the attack. The court
! concludes that the boy vas not re-
/ spons!ble for the attack, and. since
| the ordinary rule Of contributors negli-
| gence is not applicable here. the judg-
| ment for plaintiff is affirmed.
. NEGRESS SUES.
! Plaintiff, 4 black woman, about so
years of age, sues for specific perform
ance OF contract by one W. to con-
vey to l1-T strip OF land worth $4,000,
! In the case of McQuitty VS.. White, 152
Southwestern Reporter, 59S. About the
4 close of the civil war plaintiff came to
] WIS plantation a.s his housekeeper. and
/ has remained with him in that capacity
| ever since, up to 1906. when W. de-
ceased. She has borne him two chill
dren Plaintiff charges that about 1873
/ w. promised her the land in contro-
ve-sy if she would remain with him
! until his death and perform the house
hold and other duties, that she fully
performed her part, but that W. sick
ened and died without making the CON
/ veyance. From a judgment granting
I her specific performance If that prom
/ lse. defendants, the collateral heirs Of
/ w. appeal. The supreme court of Mis-
souri, hold that tho a promise ny q
/ v hite man TO convey land 10 negress
/ is not supported by consideration by
/ the fact hat she bore him children. this
i fact alone does not Gisc-edit the con-
/ tract or avoid it, and that the evidence
shows contract 10 convey real estate
/ in consideration Of personal services.
! justifying specific performance. The
/ decree is affirmed
! EVIDENCE OF BRIBERY.
On May >. 1912, an election was held
I in Lebanon. Ky, 10 determine the
| question as to whether Intoxicating II
/ uuors should be sold within the corpo-
rate limits. Upon a canvass of the
votes, il was found that the vets had
VOL. wilereupon ajcontest was ~ once
instituted Contestants charged that
such wholesale bribery was res 5rted to
by the vets in the conduct OF the
election as TO justify setting it aside In
support of this charge il was sho"
| that MANY negroes. who were not IN
tn" habit Of having money. were seen
in the possession Of new 50 bills upoE
or shcrtly after the election. Was this
evidence of bribery? The court Of APP
peals of Kentucky, holds that since i
Was not shown that tire negroes re-
ceived their new s. bills in consiGera-
ton of their votes. Or from whom thsF
| received this money. or how they voted,
il might with as much propriety he
charged I'D 10 the account OF the one
side as TO that of the other. The court
decides agaius: the contestants. Coop
or vs.. Cardwell, 152 Southwestern Re
porter $50.
IS A cow AN OK:
The complaint in the case OF Tim
biebee V. f. Company vs.. Wiiks. oo
Southern Reporter. 559 claimed dam
ages for an alleged injury to COW, the
property Of plaintiff. The evidence Of
feTed was as 10 the injury TO an OK
belonging 20 the plaintiff. was the
variance fatal or is a COW an OK? the
court Of appeals of Alabama settles
the question by holding that the word
Cow" describes only female bovine
animal. and is not broad enough In It's
meaning to include an OK, which Is
male of that species of animal Getting
: Words and Phrases. 1868
DINING CARS.
In Biselow vs.. Maine Central Rail
way Company. 50 Atlantic Reporter
t 3eS. it Ipears that passenger was
5 taken violently i'll soon after eatins
, some asparagus served on dining cal
in the service Of defendant railroad
The asparagus had been procured IRON
a reliable and reputable concern by de-
: PENDANTS comnlissary department, was
e sealed in cans of standard variety, and
5 labeled under the pure food and drug
A act. Plaintiff. granting the afsumeh
I that defendant had been in no way
0 negligent in not discovering that lhs
t food was Injurious, maintaining tina
3 tne relation between the cetenaah
!. carrier and plaintiff was such shat W
: fendant was liable in terms OF lhsui
n ance. and that knowledge of the poi
e sorcus defect in the food was charse'
# to it. The supreme judicial court .
Maine held that such rislo run
y could not be applied to defendant; ina
e ,;,. r,robased asparagus OF nrst