The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-08
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

| An important decision affecting the
Federal employers liability act has been
made by tho United States District Court
for the Eastern District OF Pennsylvania
In McGovern W.. Philadelphia and Read
Ing Railway in which the court holds that
| the act does not authorize a recovery for
the death Of an employee as "a common
carrier engaged In Interstate commerce
| for the sole benefit OF alien parents re.
siding abroad. The court follows the
/ reasoning OF the United States Supreme
Court In MaiOrn no VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company. I'm which Justice
Moody. writing the opinion said:
ut Ia not to be presumed that Con-
gress intended to legislate for the benefit
OF persons residing out OF the jurisdicI
ton OF tho state and Federal laws. The
right to recover damages for death L. not
n right at common law, and when Con-
sress undertakes 20 impose liability
upon interstate carriers for the benefit OF
their employees and the relatives of their
employees In case. Of death through the
carriers negligence. In the absence OF
any provision TO the contrary In n treaty
or act OF Congress. II must be presumed
that such benefits are not intended for
| non resident aliens"
The Court OF Appeals has affirmed Il
decision OF the Appellate Division, First
Department. In which the court laid down
the rule that IAN impos,or who by a
forged letter obtains a check made paya.
BILE TO the person whose name he has rls-
sumed has no title thereto" The facts
OF the case rs stated In the syllabus Of
the court were that defendant a private
banker I'm New York city. was accus-
toned to purchase claims Of United
States army officers for their future
He yad a
the name OF an army officer asking him 10
| discount several OF his pay vouchers for
the succeeding months and also some for
n brother officer. The name signed at
the end Of the letter was that OF an
officer whose name appeared on the army
list
/ Upon receipt OF the pay vouchers
properly made out defendant mailed "A lot
| ter to the officer. addressed to him bS
his name and official title, enclosing
checks made payable to the officers by
their respective titles OF Office. II later
appeared that the first letter had been
written by AN impostor VINO had also
signed the pay vouchers and who opened
the letter containing the checks and
cashed the same. although he was not
known to the officers OF the bank and
identified himself merely by showing en-
velopes addressed to him by the name and
title given on the check" Il WAS held
that mo title to tho checks passed to
the impostor. and that in an action
against the defendant by his bank on a
note he can set or as n counterclairn the
amount OF the checks which the bank
had paid out OF his funds"
The right OF the Governor Of a State 20
rovosc conditional pardon on the ground
that evidence had been discovered leading
him to believe that clemency had been
Ill advised is passed upon by the Court
OF Criminal Appeals Of Texas IN ex rnrtc
Rice, I'm which the court holds that a con-
ditional pardon IL as absolute an act upon
the conditions named az an unconditional
pardon, and cannot Ice revoked by tho
nardoning power except for violation of
the conditions. The court said:
I'm the brief filed in b.half OF the
state II seems that the contention IL made
that as the Governor Is granted power
and authority to grant a pardon this in
cludes the right to revoke q pardon after
II IL granted. and that the states conten-
ton is based upon the error that the
Constitution confides to the Governor the
power and authority to revoke a pardon
as well rs to grant Il is manifest through
out In the brief filed.
1T IL not a power Of revocation which
is being exercised. but an ascerta inmert
OF a fact which rendered II void when
issued the same rule being applied TO
pardons that Is applied to all other trans
actions In life. And II the Governor Is
not granted the authority and power 10
revoke an unconditional pardon al pleas
ure 10y tho constitutlon--lnd this crrtnialy
no one can SO contend-thcn the right to
revoke Il conditional pardon comes moi,
from any power conferred on him by tho
Constitution and laws of the State hui.
by reason OF the conditions placed in tho
pardon and solely from that source"
Tho Iirgin.a Lac Register has tina
following editorial on subject which
has been urged by bench and bar As e
needed reform in New York state
The absurd.,y also OF refusing 90
allow the failure OF tho accused to tcs-
tify In his own behalf TO be used against
him and positively forbidding any allu-
sion In argument to such failure should
he corrected. The aim OF a criminal trial
Is 10 acquit the innocent and convict the
guilty. An Innocent man need never fear
the ordeal of the witness box. 4 guilty
man always does II n man BY keeping
or the stand leads jury to believe
him guilty. should they not be allowed to
draw an Inference from his failure to
testify? What good. sensible reason can
he urged Cor the present state .. the
law" Is Il not against all reason" And
the fact Is that most Jur!es do draw An
inference from thc silence ~ the accused.
for the" know OF his right TO testify.
The fact Is that in our admnistrat,o
~ the criminal law are a century be-
hing the times. In tenderness toward
the criminal We have hardened our heart },
as 10 the just enforcement Of tho law
We have retained practically all the bars
which We're erected 10 aid him when n"
stood accused and upon trial WAS not
allowed counsel Why sho9ld we no;
now give the law n chance and AT lcas,
put IL upon al equality with the crimi-
nal" II Is about time we brought some
good. hard. logical common sense TO -,
reformation OF our criminal procedure"
The supreme Judicial Court OF Massa-
chuscttS holds IN Gray W. Boston Elevated
Railway that passenger In all action for
injuries. who was university professor.
was properly permitted to prov, the eN-
tent oi HIS studies and equipment In Il
department ~ lcar,.lng In which ne spr-
c't.ia"d rs hc1rin.' on the value or his
lost time. X was h"ld that whrg" plain
TN had mad" special study Of publ.
service corporations. evidence that d" had
made ! profitable contract for the pIcpa
ration OF n series OF articles ana Was
prevented from scNccu;ng the contract