The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-07-29
GASES OF INTEREST

NSs F. 145 Northwestern Reporter, 709. is a, case in which is determined whether the husband, by remarrying, may olb- tain exemption from the liability which he incurred by reason of a former marriage A decree of divorce had been obtained against the appellee. and later the payment of alinony for the support of his wife and child was de- creed Execution, on the Judgment was returned unsatisfied, and a gar- nishee summons was thereupon issued The garnishee was duly served and the defendant Leonard Winter set up that he was again married, was living with his wife ,and was. inc head of a family; that he had neither land, town lotss nor a house subject to exemptfon as a homestead; that he and his wife were boarding. and that they had no furniture or other property except wearing apparel. The District Court discharged the garnishee, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme \ Court of Nebraska held that the husband could not defeat the collection of alinnonv by remarrying and claiming the Sene- fit of the exemption law. The court said that the law ought not to permit him to construct a shield that will protect him in his marital and domes- tic recklessness. By getting married again he ought not to be permitted to relieve himself from the burden of support The branch of jurispru- dence which treats of marriage is lost imp portant. Marriage furnishes the basis of q permanent and Christian civilization. The duties assumed m der it should be conscientiouslv dis charged. Courts of equity will cornz pei the enforcement oS marriage obli- gattons, and no mere rule of law sought to be interposed by him will permit the derelict husband to escape the burden of supporting his wife and children" The court held that the ooJect of the statute relating to ex- ednptions was the protection of -the family and not the protection of the husband. Tt could never have been designed to allow a man to escape his obligations to his family. Why, then. should 1t not protect the family against him. as well as protect it against a creditor ?2
 PRIZE FIGHTING. The Spring field Court of Appeals, Missouri, in State vs. Business Mems Athletic Club. 16S SouthwSstern Reporter, SOL says as to cited definitions of prize fights's: Most or all of them include the ele- ment of receiving a prize or reward by both contestants, though it is held that 1t is not essential that the winner receive a different or greater reward than the loser. It is apparent that the championship or honor and repu- tation of being the winner may be a sufficient prize. It may be true that the incentive of obtaining prize or reward as the winner in such a contest was the principal factor in building up and developing such a. sport and accounts for the term applied to such contests The inhibition of the law, however, is not so much against the giving of a prize or reward for such contests as against the kind of fights which had been developed by giving prizes. and which ,sthe lawmakers found were being conducted under the name of fights. Nor does the fact that certain rules have been enacted and are observed in such contests tending to make the same less danger ous to life and limb and Go lessen the pain and physical injury to the com batants, prevent such contests from being prize fights It seems to us that, while there are other elements such as the. law seeks to prohibit of more or less importance, that the pre- arranged fighting under certain rules, of two persons by striking each other with their fists and hands for the spur-8 pose and with the intent to infIict on jury as to disable his adversary from further continuing the contest. The fact that the fight may be stopped by a referee before an actual knockout when it has progressed long enough, and with such results that there is no longer a doubt sAas to which will dis able the other, would make little diff ference to the kind of a fight. Nor should it make much difference that it a5e agreed that, in case one party succeeded in disabling his adversary 1 in, say, 10 rounds-thaA is, 40 to 50 minutes Of fighting, with short rest periods-that the fight then cease, or. 1 if neither is disabled within that time, the victor be determined by which has inflicted the most punishment or near est disabled his opponent
 ABOUT, FACE! Plaintiff did not