The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-08-19
CASES OF lNTEREs1

TEST OF DON4CIIE.-ACsr Cray V.
 O'Banion ICalifornia District Court
 of Appeal 1s138 Pacific Reporter, SIT, presents an interesting discussion as
 to the test of a voters denicf7e. The
 court says: The plaintiff alleged
 that R. l.. Smart, Jess Brown, G. e.
 Carter and e. w. Stackhouse were illegal voters, and that they cast their votes for the defendant. They were
 employed as farm Iaborers on the
 Spencer Bailey ranch king partly in each of the two supervisorial dis tricts. The resi- dence er dwelling
 house of the owners has been re-
 ferred to as being situated on the
 boundary line between the two dfs-
 trtcts. MT. Smart slept in small
 house about 1gO feet north of the
 boundary line between the, two dis tricts and within the Cranmore pre-
 cinct in the Third district. The three other men slept in a. bunkhouse which
 was also north of the boundary line. and wholly in Cranmore precinct. All of the men ate their meals in the
 dining room of the main dwelling house, but generally had access to the dwelling house for no other purpose. When not at work or at their neais they spent their time at their sIeepE ing quarters. From these facts the court must determine whether they were legal voters of Rome precinct These men were all unmarried and without permanent homes in the or dinary sense. Their residence must
 be determined by rules somewhat more liberal than are applicable in cases of married men, or men with
 families. Yet the statute is the same
 for the determination in both cases
 That place must be considered and
 held to be the residence of a person in which his habitation is fixed, and
 to which. whenever he is absent. he has the intention of returnfngS . do not take it that the place where one sleeps is necessarily conclusive, but. in the absence of more satis- factory proof, it is determfnatiye Of the question of residence In the case of the four men working on the spen- cer- Bailey ranch, the place where they sleep under the circumstances
 shown by the evidence, is determin- alive of their right to vote in the one precinct or the other. because
 their bunkhouse and cabin have more of the characteristics of domicile
 than any other place disclosed by the l evfd ence. '
 RIGHTS OF NoNs UNION LABOR ERS.-Has non-union worker a l cause of action for damages against l a labor union because of whose de- mands and threats to strike he was
 discharged? This was the somewhat
 unusual question put to the Supreme I V = l ted Mine Workers of America, 139 Pa I cific Reporter, 126. Tn the syllabus of the case the court says: ''Any man, in 1 the absence of a contract to work a definite time, has a@right to quit l whenever he chooses for any reason l satisfactory to him, or without any I reason. If his wages are not satis- factory, his hours of labor too long 1 his work too hard, his employer or his employment uncongenia1, or his I colaborers objectionable, his fight to 1 quit is absolute. What an individual I may do, a number of his colaborers | may join him in doing, providing the i thing to be done is lawful. Employes l of a coal company, who are members 1 of a labor union, have the right, when l involved in a, trade dispute between 1 themselves and their employer and growing out of this relation, to pro-
 test to their employer against the I employment or retention in his em- 1 ployment, of non-union empIoye the statement that if such non-unior
 man is employed, Or retained, the
 union employees will strike-that is that such employees will simultaneous 1 ly cease to work for such employer; I and, if such protest is not needed the union men have the lawful right
 to strike. and, if it is needed, the non. 1 union man who is discharged has nc
 cause of action against either the un- ion as an organization or the mem,
 bers thereof as individuals
 IS A LAWYER AN ATTORNEY: lin the case of People V. Taylor, l 3s Pacific Reporter. 762, respondent