The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-08-09
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

The minority opinion of the Court OF
Appeals in the People Of the State OF
New York against Charles Kaye. in which
the majority of the court upholds a regu-
lation of the Fire Department Of New
York city that automatic sprinklers must
be installed on premises used for manu-
featuring purposes. Is written in vigorous
language by Judge Hogan and says In
part
To give to the section and ordinances
the construction claimed for them would
authorize tho Fire Commissioner to re-
Quire the installation VI any means speci-
fed by him for extinguishing fires in the
buildings specified IN the section. including
churches. stores. offices. boarding houses,
lodging houses and all other buildings
referred to in the section. and would CON
fer upon the Fire Commissioner unlimited
power as to the character Of the means
for preventing or extinguishins fires. He
might in his discretion require an auto
matte sprinkling system in every church.
boarding house and building described in
the section. He might require that certain
Of the churches and buildings specified
should maintain FIRE steamer for the
purpose OF extinguishing fires II the Ian
guase used Ia to he given the broad con-
struction claimed for t."
\ decision involving the facts required
to prove change Of domiclle Ia handed
down by the Supreme judicial Court OF
Massachusetts in Emery rs Emery. In
which 1t appeared that Samuel W Emery,
a New Hampshire lawyer Of distinction
and Judge of the Municipal Court Of
Portsmouth, resigned and went to Boston.
where he became a justice Of the peace.
He was unable to dispose OF his family
residence In Portsmouth and for that red-
son retained IL, and In Boston he lived In
a hotel In deciding that the decedent
had changed his domicile aud that his
will should be probated in Massachusetts
the court said:
While the facts with reference TO the
occupation Of the Portsmouth house, II
considered alone and unexplained. might
render u AT times somewhat unce~ta and
equiNocal which NJ the two places Of resi-
dence was his legal domicile the other
facts clearly Indicate that he carried out
his admitted honest purpose To establish
his real home in Boston and all the facts
are consistent with this constant intent on
his part II seems probable that his fail
ure to purchase a house In Boston was
due largely to his inability to sell the
Portsmouth property. However that may
he It II immaterial that while here his
residence was in q hired house or In an
apartment.
The case Of Kerr VS. Shurtleff before
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu-
sets. was brought to recover damages be-
cause tne uelenuail, 10 inuuce 'ne pialIl
wa w ue'"'''' s.u"eu'' l'pi cSeiI.." 'na'
ulc ,oil,se VI NY Hlcl"IS az" 81, seon'
couiu CIV mn .he "'slee VI - W -. ~
ter pursuing a three years course. II an-
peared that while the college could give
the degree of NJ n. Il could not confer
the degree promised. and the court held
'"t us ,' =, Wv o., do,o,,
~, ~ ao' ~, w on ,r,,i hora,.or no,
aa,,seJ ,ha ,r,ai Judge charged ma, tbs
d.. ,.as o. corsid.r ~ hearing on ,bs
ouos,ion ~ damages what tho pIaintlr
"a Ia 90, Co. ,,,,,io, In ordering !
nan ,ri,i ,ba court said
''Wha, Tho plaintiff got was nm educa.
,ior in dentistry. what he would have
co, T., the renrcsert,tion had been true
Vas an education in dentistry and a de
gree The measure OF damages. there
fore. In the case at bar is what II vii
cost the plaintiff in time and money tc
paid out In getting thu education IN den
tistry without the degree. The exception
! to this portion OF the charge must ID
sustained
! A recent decision OF the English Cour
, OF Appeal IN hurst We.
Ltd is of interest here because IL appar
10 overrule the leading case of Wood Va
/ Leadbitter. which has been followed II
or ticket OF ADMISSION 70 thea.,
OF otner puoHc pace Mas su"seuue"',
'JeCteu' ne cur nelu ma II. .ou''
/ recover oiHE 'he d'"ou'' Pa'u ioI 'ls Wv
anu tnt "cItssa'I oNp'ns'S NV Va Gu
! oIuei 10 "''en" tHe PEI l'''anN',
/ w oou vs. Leduo'''ei Case a! ose 'ii u ''''
! eJeC',n'u' " nv P'"'l'''' 'loI" VIZ H'',I'
sta"u AZ W, Do"rdster laees' u''ue. u"
uIIec'lo" ~ '1''u VI, ',' o.. .
oetdust OF an 'le3d.'o" " previous III"
me 'uuI III 'he i'uIs' eaS, u'Vs wa
inv saIe VI ,''Ne' u nv ""'' "N."s
uh"cco"p"neu uE an! gram ou'
s'""' Va ~
! ioinl'iC' i'"'' psS'''l'ls p" ."H ""u
r'snt 10 go On Wv P'''i'Is's W 81 W.
performance. me couI' Vo'ul"s' :
7 awards Su"S''n''a' ua''"ses W INV P''''
''i'
The New York Lar journal approve
, of the latest English ruling on the sub
joct ana says
There is really no Theoretical justlhca
! ton for holding that theatre ticket
a mere personal license and as sue
( arbitrarily revocahle. The purchase o
a theatre ticket is contract and n
: amount of casuistry can MIKE 1t any
. thing hut a contract.