The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-07-05
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

lature to give Its opinions to the legislators
on important questions OF law and upon
solemn occasions" The legislature re-
Gently asked the court for an exposition
OF the Constitution relating to the powers
OF taxation" and sent to court mes
sage from the Governor which Gale the
courts attention to "the unsa tisfactory con
dition of our tax laws" and the necessity
OF either changing those laws or pro-
vidng for their stricter enforcement.
The court has asked to be excused from
ans ering the questions and In its opinion
says:
O. solemn occasion az those words are
used in the Constitution does not seem to
have arisen. There does OF appear TO
be present legislation proposed to which
attention has been gravely directed. he
general court need not have decided to
enact a particular bill before the opinion
Of the Justices can be required. But
definite enactment to a specific end must
be under serious consideration before II
can be said that a solemn occasion has
been presented within the meaning oi those
words In the Constitution. An academic
discussion OF constitutional principles upon
n subject so funda mental ms that of taxation
cannot be required. Preliminary investl-
cation by the Justices OF a governmental
function involving many practical CON
siderations OF policy without the formula
ton Of a definite plan for proposed statute
In not within the duty ascribed TO them.
The Court of Appeals in People vs. Aren-
stein decides that an indictm ent Will not
lie In this State for crime committed
partly within and partly without the state.
Concerning this ruling the NsU York Ldu
journal says:
Under the circumstances there IL only
one suggestion to be made. In his con
curing memorandum Judge Werner says
that he has no doubt OF the power OF the
Legislature to make crime OF the facts
set forth In the indictment. II an inten-
ton was not clearly expressed that sub
division l OF section 1880 of the Penal Law
should have the force of substantive law
and that view has now become author
itative--the matter should be brought to
the attention Of the Legislature immedi-
ately upon its converting next winter and
pressed by the bar throughout the stat.
to the end that an explicit and unnistak
able provision may be inserted In the Penn
Law making criminal and punishable 1t
this State offences committed partly In New
York and partly elsewhere.
In Peter Barrett Manufacturing Compan,
! VS.. Everett T.. Wheeler the Court of Appeals
makes this ruling:
A stable keeper who takes horses fo
board and with them a truck for storag
which has a chattel mort gage on II Cai
! acquire no lien on the truck as against th
mortgage for the board OF the horses
but only for storing the truck. and If tn
board of the horses included storing th
Z truck then he has no lien on 1t ahead of tn
, mortgage"
The dismissal from the Police Depart
ment of a police officer who killed a brothe
, officer in a station house by the cHreles
, discharge Of "A revolver in "horseplay /
= upheld by the Court OF Appeals in'Mprrisse
vs.. Waldo in which the court says tina
e the Police Commissioner in dismissin
1 the patrolman from the force to the en-
n that tho morale OF the department Nigh
be preserved exercised right not sub
. ject to judicial review. The court said
q There must be some limit to the horse
play allowed to officers within the wall
. Of the station house. II does not seem IN
!, reasonable TO hold that the limit has bee
. passed when the horsepay involves ia
discharge OF firearms with fatal conse
/, quences. At all events IL is not for I'll
, court reversing the judgment Of the Con
!, missioner to pronounce such conduct COZ
IT sistent with order and discipline. m
d. conduct itself was admitted In dete
mining that IL was Of such a nature as
q require the punishment of the relator
. the end that the morale Of the departmel
:. mi ut he preserved. the Commissions
" exercised a discretion not subject TO iudici
. review"
y The Supreme Court of Mississippi hol,
T. in johnson VS.. State that where u new
n paper man visited the defendant in ia
IT three times within twenty-four hours aft
"A the Coroner's inquest over the body of q
4, one whom defendant was accused of xii
ing during which time the defendant WI
sick and in fear of lynchinR. and told Il
defendant that he would have no pen
10 or hope OF salvation unless he confesse
IN and stated that he, the newspaper ina
in was a spirituaist and could look into Il
~ defendants heart and see the crime viii,
to he had committed. a confession therel
ne secured was not voluntary which mea
proceeding from a spontaneous operati,
ch of the partys own mind free from the i
as huence OF an extraneous cause"
no In Gosser vs.. Ohio Valley Water Coz
VI pany the Supreme Court of Pennsylvan
81 held that where. in an action for the dea
b, OF plaintiffs husband from typhoid few
caused by drinking impure water fro
defendants water system. there was not
Is ing to show that deceased drank the wat
ne before his illness other than proof OF
custom of drinking water before retirir
he and the testimony showed that he was 90
DIS stantly absent from homo and of necessi
ay drank water at places supplied with u
he filtered river water. and the entire e.
III dence left the cause OF the fever comic
-. tural. the court properly directed n V,
." dict for the defendant.
D. The court said 1T appeared from I
p- plaintiffs testimony that typhoid few
ir. Ia caused by specific germ that may
ed communicated to the human system
water milk, uncooked vegetables, fruit. u
cooked shellhsh, direct or indirect &C
ng tamination and grains OF dust in the
,rs when moist. and that II develops in ma
IN, cases where IT Is impossible TO define I
he source OF Infection. A finding by the ju
is under the evidence admitted would ha
Is been mere conjecture. based on an inf
ew ence selected from number of equa
probable differences.
ror The Supreme Court OF North Carolil
-, holds in Teeter vs.. Horner Military Sch
!, that where private school, accordi
INC to its catalogue. required the payment
I'M tuition in advance. and the catalogue v
W. sent to a parent who sent his child to
it'll school, the parent was liable for full tuit
YER notwithstanding the expulsion of the oh
cal on reasonable grounds. the rules also stil
ala lating that the tuition would be forfeit
on expulsion.