The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1914-02-07

danger and did not do so. then the
company should be held on the prin-
ciple of last clear chance. In holding
that they would apply. the court said
in part: 1T is a universal rule that
voluntary drunkenness is no excuse
for negligence, either primary or con-
tributory 1t is not even an excuse
for crime. Drunkenness, however, is
not in itself negligence 1t is merely
an evidentiary fact tending to prove
negligence
Turkeys Rights - Turkeys and
Thanksgiving to most stomachs are
synonymous. The lordly cousin to the
chicken is always interesting even to
one who, in view of the high cost of
living, may not be able to buy last
years turkeys nest egg. Perhaps
the learned judge in Lewis VS.. Nor
folk Southern Railroad company of
North Carolina (supreme court of
North Cardinal was thinking of
Thanksgiving, for he upheld the rights
of turkeys with true Puritan valor
The defendant railroad company was
sued for running down and killing six
turkeys on its right of way. The
Court held that the company was negli-
gent in not sounding the whistle when
seeing the turkeys. ct might be sug-
gested that the state prosecutes the
railroad company for so wantonly des-
troying the resources of the country
From the known characteristics OF
turkeys, Il flock OF them feeding OH or
crossing track might not notice that
the train was approaching or attempt
to fly. But. as when gun is dis
charged close by. if there had been the |
sharp blow of the whistle, the tur-
keys would doubtless have taken to |
wing or have run. They are very tim
id if alarmed but they are not alert |
to perceive danger. The jury would /
have been justified in inferring from
the evidence that the failure to blow
the whistle was the proXimate cause
Of the turkeys being killed. and that
hey would have removed themselves
promptly by flight if the whistle had
been sharply blown"
"The Birds OF a Feather" Etc, Max
m, Not Applicable to Lawyers and
1lients-In these days of mud sling
ng,' it might be interesting to note
hat the following was held not libel
Jus per Sc in Walsh VS.. Pulitzer
company (supreme court
If MissourD: The mere candidacy
# such a person as Walsh for such ,
n office should fill the city with :
.larm. He has no qualifications for f
he place. His sponsors and his as i
ociates are survivors of the most de- +
raded regime that ST. Louis ever a
new. He can have no proper mo- II
I'VE in aspiring to the place" Walsh +
as seeking candidacy to the office of q
ircuit attorney. The above was pub &
shed concerning him. He sued for =
25,000 The court decided that in +,
5 far as the words were not of them n
elves actionable without the state h
ent of eXtrinsic allegations, which :,
ere not given, plaintiff has no cause
action. The court in part said =
The plaintiff is a lawyer. as is evil
mt from his candidacy and his repu-
ton, even by the laity, is not rated
his character measured by the .
anding of his sponsors and associ-
es, which we take to mean his
tents. The doctrine of nosciture a G
ellis which, literally Englished, is
1t with seriousness applied to a law =.
II who, if engaged in the criminal =,
actice, may have a questionable class
clients, and yet suffer no discredit
erefrom in the estimation of the Sc
lblic While a candidate for a pub sa
office is not to be subjected to We
in the public press of his an
putation or character at the expense M
truth, for a lie is never privileged, oh
is the right and duty of newspaper Pr