The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-12-27
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

The Nichioon LaU Revir,o discusses
recent case in which a burglar alarm com
pany was sued for the loss OF property
resulting from a burglary on the ground
that an employee OF the company failed
10 set a burglar alarm which would have
summoned guards and probably resulted
in the capture OF the burglars with their
loot. The court held that tho negligence
OF the burglar alarm company was not
the proximate cause OF the loss md that
the fact that the loss might have beer.
prevented depended on several cofitn-
gencies. For this reason the suit was dis
missed. The Lar Rcriep says of the de-
cison:
ITO hold that the negligence Of the de-
PENDANT In this case was not the proN-
| innate cause OF the injury H.. 1t would
seem. carrying the doctrine Of interview
Ing efficient causes entirely too far. An
intervening efficient cause has been de-
fined TO he n new and independent force
which breaks the casual connection be-
tween the original wrong and the injury
When the primary cause Is so interrupted
and when the chain of events is so
| broken that they become independent
then such cause may he fnirly said TO ne
remote and not proxmate But Il il
equally clear that If the occurrence Of
the intervening cause might reasonably
have been anticipated, such iutervening
cause will not Interrupt the connection be
tween the primary cause ana tho injury.
Here not only might the Intervening cause
have been anticipated IN the part Of the
defendant hut II was precisely the thing
against which Il was its duty TO guard "
The supreme Court % Pennsylvania
! IN Mcdonald VS.. Ice paSsss on the uues-
/ ton as to whether a person VITO hrs bee0
reported by a physical TO an asSuci t-
tion Of phS sicisns Is being slow pay lsa
cause OF action for libc, The cour.
said
we can sec no sufficient ground for
holding tho publication 10 lee lIbcnous per
80. II II became actioush'c ly reason OF
some special damage o,ri4icuci therch,
that fact should hay" been alleged iu th,
! declaration. and proof thereof should hay,
been offered upon 'he tr,ll I. w9e shown
that IN" words here used v..h resp,,.
20 tho plaintiff dd rot 20 beyond Inn
putting to him s,owness iu tho ptyfn"rt nc
his bills, and und,- IN, Is ideucc IL can
/ hardly he claimed thar hc was prouip' iN
the discharge % that duty. Tn. accuse
ton was not so serious In rs character
as 20 IN fairy regarded as IN Itself libc. lou.
and II anr injury was Dccasipred 90 plain.
TIT thereby II does ro' app-ar f,om ;Ne
testimony"
novel question involving m,sconduc'
| by a jury was before the supreme Cour,
| az North Dakota IN state v Applega'c. fl,
| which Il appeared thai tho jury was hear.
| ing d prosecution for tine ILLEGAL sale -
liquor and took three hotties 90 beer. tie
cNief exhibits or thu ras,. INTO Tho tury
| room. The bottles we're found cnp..
! after N" jury had reached verdict frl.
\ ing no defendant guilt. CounSc' for
the defendant objected n the jury drink.
| ing tho evidence. and in finding the jurors
guilty 81 such misconduct az % rcouir,
| a now 'ria, ~ the case. with rev evidence
| he court said
III the jury drank n. con.snts o, N.
| bottles in order to tes. is qualities rs ar
intoxicant they clearly violated m. law
| as hey had no right to try any such az.
! pertinent Even II they drank Il from q
! spirit Of bravado prejudice Will he pre-.
| su'ned. There Is no merit N tie Cpn,-n,
! tion 81 council for ,h- STATE that in hi,
| case Their" was no proc tina. :hc content,
| q: the bottles were drunk during the DO.
| liberaaons OF the Jury Or before they had
signed their verd'~'. tn. afidavl; OF ~.
! h1!"n clearly SHOWS that u was drur 3
before .ho jury notified him that the,
! had arrived at a verdict, and 'hel- do
| l!beraticns In tho eyes Of tho law mus, II,
I presumed TO have continued not on,
; up 30 such time bu: NJ 10 the time .ha'
/ their verdict WAS returned IN open court
! and in fact uu:l the jury had ba-r
/ po.led. !. poll had been demanded L.
/ I" this time indeed any jur' man m.el
, have Withdrawn his signature and re-
pudla,ed MS action. 1t = not even rec-s
| sary to decide the case oG 'le r-oun,
| That tac jury wronGfuliy -Nprr,rner -,
: with the evidence. Both parties have .
right IN he cool. dspa ss'anate and un
| niassed Judgment OF each Juror. and tn,
rule seems % he wei established tha
drunk af'e- tho jury has retired 20 con
s,der the case"
Under IN. ruling OF n. cour, n
| kays~r - Van Ncs,. - T.. z A.. 90
he fact hat "A servant driving his mas
'cr's automobile upon .he masters h,ie.
ness permits strange riding with h'r
- drive n temporary does no. absol,,
ID" rnastr" from -eSpoUS. hl,-y
The Supreme Court 81 tho Unite,
Statss" writes Christian BoNu-; IN cas-
and Comment. Exercises a power whE,r
Ne think is unique IN the world. 20 pas
Nron The cons'itutoualtyo 81 tho stature
c''1";ei by Congress. :, may TINS sus
r"nl IN" -N"'u'!o0 o. nt resolution
lawfully ddor'~l by Doth house.
rh" F'"uch coUr'S NaH" TIE r-ht {,
"r'"rnr@: th~ law. They caruo, refuse ?,
do SO under p-e,eNt mat tho law q. no
lear or that = il silent or Insufficient
by 80 doirg the judge '-.comcs guilty u
n''sdem"aro~ called 'd"n'u Of Justice
and DO Is punished by line and Deprive,
o' AL OWL lights for = pc' od varyinl
from ilVr - 'W-0ty yNa~s Sut no cour
In Franc, 70; even the Court Of Casa
t.or, has 'Nr power 10 decide wh"' ~.
a law passed ny Congress- Is uncony' ~
Honal or not"
Authority granted 20 city uudNr -
vhal"er 20 Regulate aIv ''.td. Of ter
rN ). d.lrrcruus ~ morals health o
saT''v AVID 80 prevent U'sau'es is tel
10y -" supreme Court % Arkansas j.
TcNir.Rna W Hudgius Produce com
| paDv 70 include power 90 require per
sons engaged In tho sale OF "!dsr 90 pro
) cure a license
The most unique and interesting ;nsti
tuition for tho settlement OF rivN suits :
Spain" writes Thomas w. Palmer. u
IN CGse and Comment, 80 tho arbitra
: ton court, All contentious o. dispute
, before or after NE commencement q