The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-10-11
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

, COlliSiUn was determined by the United
states Circuit Court OF Appeals Fourth
! Circuit, in the United States Of America
/ vs.. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Com
/ pany. 1t appeared that mail matter val
ued at S9,151 was destroyed when
l mail train struck part OF "A freight train
negligently left on the main track. Such
: contents OF the mail car as were not
| burned were stolen because the car was
not guarded after the accident. a num-
Der OF valuable diamonds were taken, but
, the railroad was not held responsible for
their loss because they were mailed in
violation of the postal laws. The rail-
road contended that II was not liable
for the negligence of its agents because in
carrying the mails II was performing
public function. on this point the court
said:
| at does not matter what we call the
relation between the Government and the
| railroad, the essential thing Is that tho
! railroad company assumed the obligation
| to use due care to have a safe track for
the mail car to run on, and when IL was
negligent In that respect II became re-
sponsible for any damage to the Govern
ment due either to its own negligence or
that of its servants. The distinction
urged between the negligence OF the com
pany itself and its servants on an Issue
OF this sort is artificial and unsupported
by any substantial reason. II may be
true that as between the owner of the
/
the railroad for his lost property and tho
railroad itself the railroad Is public
agency. but ms between the Government
and the railroad contracting to carry It's
mail the railroad company is liable as
party to a private contract"
The right Of the Lieutenant Governor ~
n state to exercise the right OF pardon
during the temporary absence OF the
Governor from the State was upheld by
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which
decided that under n provision OF the
State Constitution similar to that in New
York state pardon granted by the
Lieutenant Governor to convicted forger
while the Governor was absent for twenty
four hours was valid. The court rulcd
. that ON the absence OF the Governor from
the state for any purpose or for any
period ~ time the constitutional fun
; lions of his office devolve upon the
, Lieutenant Governor" Gov. Cruce had
returned TO the boundaries OF the state
before the pardon had been delivered TO
any person and when he reached the
capital he revoked the attempted pardon
, of Lieut. Gov. Crump and directed the
, warden OF the penitentiary TO disregard 4.
The proceeding which resulted in the de-
clsion OF the Supreme Court UNFOLDING the
, pardon was then instituted
As result Of the decision OF the
court I'm the Cruinp case Gov. Cruce de-
/, ernors at Colorado Springs and In letter
explaining his absence said that the
, Lieutenant Governor wanted TO make
4, wholesale delivery of criminals from the
= pcnltentiary. The Criminal Court at
Appeals in this state has Joined hands
with the observation-disclosures IN this raid
on the penal institutions by holding that
. the moment | leave the state. even II my
I absence extends only Ave minutes. the
. Lieutenant Governor can do as he pleases
. Under these conditions II would be a
crime for me to leave Oklahoma"
q The letter Of GOV Cruce is appended
= TO the opinion OF the Supreme Court In
q tho Crump case. and II Is characterized
=, "a an indefensible assault on the integrity
:, OF the court. Commenting on the case tho
l New York LdiD Journal says that the
r oklahoma decision amounts 10 stating tina
II the Governor goes to another State
/ as n representative OF his own state 4
IS a patriotic celebration or II he Is absen
% few hours in another state at the bed
side OF sick child or dying parent. "th'
/ Lieuteuant-Governo may indulge In
Jail delivery" The LdU Journal says:
e The squabble is, of course, an un
seemly one, but the decision ought neve
to have been made, and as the Governo
d was obliged TO absent himself from
n quasl-oiIicial duty In another State through
fear OF qualification OF the first principle
Al OF government at home, he Is scarcely L
. be blamed for the plain language he used
" 1t may be conceded as the Oklahoma
N court contends, that valid pardon ono
= granted Is irrevocable. but II should hav
been held that the pardon attempted TO b.
granted under the circumstances In thi
40 case was not valid in the first instance
~ In interpreting constitutions, even NOR
\, than in Interpreting statutes, the lette
u kllleth and the spirit maketh alive. Tn
literal construction given by the Suprem
r Court OF Oklahoma amounts 90 reducti
IF ad absurdum."
The London Lac Journal makes tn
- following comment on the insistence b.
r. the English Court OF Criminal Appeal tina
A. trial judges make adequate cummings u
OF the cases before them:
zone of the most useful functions o
w the Court OF Criminal Appeal Is the in
in sistence which II rightly makes on prope
and adequate cummings up on the par
q trial Judges. This is illustrated b.
- the recent successful appeal Of Rex VS.
!" MAcGnl Gully 49,. Here the appellpn
was indicted with another man mt Sal
ford Hundred Quarter Sessions for be
re ing concerned In the theft OF money fror
e. the in of public house bar. The M
ne pellant. his coprsoner. whose name wa
n Anthony, and an old man who died be
fore the trial were alleged 10 have bee
ia together IN the bar on the occasion o
the theft. The barman had 10 leave tn
bar for moment. and on his return tn
~ against the prisoner was that the bar
~ man recognized him as one OF the me
- who had been in the bar fact whic
was Disputed by the defence. Even
II he had been IN the bar at the time. II
u obvious that he might have been limo
IN cent. In such Il case II was clearl
=, the duty of the trial Judge to draw al
tention To- two points In his summin
VI up. namely. the question whether or nc
N appellant was In fact present in the ba
I'd at the time OF the offence and the ques
IT., tlon as to whether, II there, he was act
ing In concert with the actual THE
Nothing Of this kind was pointed out |
40 the summing up. The chairman merel
~, told the Jury that they must be reason
"A ably satisfied as to which man stole IN
~ money. II any Of them stole II. The coul
~ held that whenever there are difflcultie
a Of fact or law, and particularly whe
-, there are several defendants against eac
of whom the case is rather different, III
trial Judge ought to make an adequa'
," summing up directing the jury as to III
as points affecting each prisoner. The coz
a viction of MacGill was therefore quashe'
IN An unusual case OF negligence again'
by n railroad company was heard by N
ITpited states CircuIt Court n ApDeal