The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-29
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.


to checks 10 not . forser according to q
recent ruling BY . Denver court. II APP
peared that the woman In question was
suing her husband for divorce and cashed
checks BY signing her husbands name
because her children were in want and her
husband had failed to provide for them
The woman. who was arrested. was not
only freed but the court held that her act
was proper.
Commenting on the case Lao Notes
says: The essential element Of forgery,
an act TO injurs or defrAud, was absent
from the wife's act. Her husband could
neither be injured nor defrauded by being
forced. to tho amount Of the checks, to do
what he was under legal obligation to do,
VS.. support his own children. A. to the
propriety Of the act who will question
III Has II not been the traditional right
Of the wife to 70 through her husbands
pockets1 And has the exercise Of that
inalienable right ever. been denominated
an unlawful search and selsure, or sub
jected the good wife to the charge Of lar
ceny?"
The United States Supreme Court holds
In United States W. Lexington Mill and
Elevator Company that the addition OF
In such minute quantities that the health
OF consumers cannot possibly be in
5ured II not a violation Of the food and
drugs act. The proceedings before the
court was to condemn certain -four as
adulterated. It had been treated by the
Alsop process. by which nitrogen peroxide
gas, generated by electricity, was mixed
with air and then brought In contact
with the -four for the purpose Of bleaching
II. The court ruled that the nitrites add
ed for coloration did not make the -four
Injurious to the health.
A case involving a right to an award
for apprehending "A criminal was decided
by the Supreme Court of Kansas in Eli
kins vs.. Board of Commissioners of Wyan-
dotte county. In which the court held that
"A person who discovers the perpetrator
Of a crime and the evidence by which he
can be convicted may be entitled to a re-
ward offered for the arrest and conviction
OF the offender, even although. having tho
power to make the arrest himself, he
omits to exercise 1t and permits some one
else to take the defendant into custody"
In the English case Of Herd vs.. Wear
dale Steel. Coal and Coke Company. de-
cided by the Kings Bench Division. the
plaintiff. miner. sued for damages for
false Imprisonment. He entered the
SHAFT OF the mine at Q 80 A. NJ. where
he expected to work until +. NJ. but he
and other miners on arriving at the bot
tom Of the shaft objected to doing work
which they considered dangerous and
demanded to be taken TO the surface In
the lift. They were kept at the bottom
until l 80 +. NJ before the manager re-
Tented and let them go to the surface
BY q divided court the Judges held that
the plaintiff was not entitled TO dam
ages and reversed a verdict for twenty
shillings. The majority OF the court held
that az the plaintiff had contracted T.
work for that shift and was implicitly
TO remain in the mine until the end OF the
shift they were entitled to retain him In
the mine until the end OF the shift
whether he wished 10 remain or not In
fact practically to enforce his perform
70 leave the mine until the end OF the time
when the performance had been made"
A similar case decided by the Supreme
judicial Court Of Maine was Whitaker
Va. Sanford. brought against tho leader OF
the sect known a. the Holy Ghosters by
tho wife OF q member OF the sect who
had been trying to induce her husband
TO leave che sect and make home for
her and her family. Che sued Sanford
because ne refused to furnish her with
transportation from the yacht to land
and got . verdict Of $500. The court
said:
Besides tho evidence Of express per-
sonal refusal on the part OF the defend
ant We think that a Jury might well find
upon the evidence that the defendant was
strongly DESTROYS that the plaintiff should
not leave the yacht. probably for the rea-
son that he hoped her husbands influence
might lead her back into the movement /:
that the husband was strongly DESTROYS
OF the same end. that II she left the
yacht she would be beyond the influence
OF her husband. that the subject was a
matter OF conversation between the de-
PENDANT and the husband; that In view
of the relation which the defendant bore
20 the movement and to the husband, In
view OF the mystical character attributed
TO him. In view OF the manifest power
possessed by him over the minds Of the
members growing out OF a belief which
We have already stated. and which the
husband shared In. the husband. II not
acting by express mutual understanding
with the defendant was the minister Of
his known will, with the result that the
plaintiff was prevented from leaving the
yacht that the defendant was the SUI
perior. the controlling factor. by an In
fiuence Intentionally used In keeping her
there: that he possessed the key tina.
would unlock the situation. and that In
NioihtiotI vi MS uuts "" Iciuseu " ute IL
and thus restrained her OF her liberty.
n all this was true the defendant Is
liable to the plaintiff"
A parents right to choose subjects
for his child to pursue In school was
decided by tho Supreme Court Of Ne
braska In State vs., Ferguson, which was
proceeding to compel the school author
tiles to reinstate Ferguson's daughter.
who had been dismissed because by her
fathers direction she had refused to take
all the studies prescribed by the school
authorities for the grade in which she
was pupil. The girl, who WAS IL years,
was permitted by her father 20 take all
the required studies except cooking The
court said: The school trustees OF Il
high school have authority 10 classify
and grade scholars In the district and
cause them to be taught In such depart
ments as they may deem expedient: they
may also prescribe the courses OF study
and textbooks for the use OF the school
and such reasonable rules and regula-
lions as they may think needful. They
may also require prompt attendance, re-
spectful department and diligence in
study, The parent, however. has right
to make reasonable selection from the
prescribed studies for his child TO pur-
sue. and this selection must be respected
by the trustees. as the right Of the parent
In that regard IL superior TO that OF the
trustees and the teachers. .