The sun., 1914-09-27
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

! i'I uin'dg'S : SuIeftO ~ pc. son run oNsr
by his automobile whrn Il is operated by a
member OF the family. The Court OF Er-
/ rors and Appeals OF New Jersey says in
the syllabus in Miss,ll W. Hayes.
Tn a suit against a father for his
sons negligence in operating the fathers
! automobile on the public highway. where
| II appeared tuat the automobile was for
! tn" use OF the fathers family, and that at
TIL time Of the accideu; the son was driy e.
Ing and the fathers wife and daughter
/ were In the automobile, and that all thrr,
we're members Of the fathers Immediate
b family. II was held TO be "a jury question
whether the son was tho fathers servant
/ or the fathers business. IN which cas-, the
/ father would be liable, on whether as ail
! the other testimony alleged. the Son was
Z Going to call on friend and his mother
and sisters were accompanying him on his
! invitation and ds his guests"
In a similar case before tho supreme
! Court OF South Carolina the court ruled
/ that when 4 father provides an automo-
! bile for the use Of his family. his son IS
his agent when using the ear for pleas
ure and the father is liable for the sons
| negligent use OF H. In Ciulgnon W. Camp
| hell the supreme Court " Washington had
| the cas-" OF q married woman owning an
| automobile which her son used IN driving
"A servant to n street car and ran over th
| plaintiff. Tn. court said that though the
mother was absent az the time OF the ac-
cldtni and was not Obliged to furnish her
automobile for the use Of members Of hey
| family. the fact that shc i'd 50 voun-
tariy made her Liable IN the case.
The admission of dying declarations rs
evidence In q murder trial is dissdsse
hv the supreme Court of Alabama N
Tittlc vs. state. In which II appeared
| that dccedcni after making dying dec
liration tending to show murder d0'
mittcI statements of the accused mad
iu his presence which eNonera'cl tN,
accused The court ruled that both dy.us
declarations should be admitted 'n "'i-
d'ucr and ordered % new tiih r"cHSs.
the trial Justice restricted ia" scope 80
the last declaration to q co 'radictiou -
Tine. previous one. Tho court said:
"Thc state offered evidence Of a Gviua
declaration made 10y the deceased vhiI
tended 10 show a case Of murder. Defend
aui t,Sl.nud 20 4 case Of s'lf-def-ucc I'D
ldluco1 evidence of frequent statement.
hv deceased pr,VIouS to the fatal "r'
counter t. the effect that he had KILLED
Ne men and was going Ia kill the sixth
! such statements having been made un
do circumstances afording an Inference
! that doCousel ou these occasion" had n
mind defendant as III" sixth victim OF his
wrath Witnesses for defendant also
testified that subsequent to III" dying
declaration offered in evidence nv the Stat'
a.d shortly before the death of deceased
defendant approached the bedside NJ The
wounded man and said Tucle Here.
hated 20 dc this but YOU know 7 had
to do it, You told mo YOU had lNll"i
five mca and would Kill six pidn'' yol
o. II me that. Uncle Here" To which ie
r'oscd replied. Yes -
law OF Connecticut permitting 'h'
state to appeal in mnnslaughter cases
where tho jury has acquitted the de
; '.udart B.. discussed los thr supreme
Court OF Errors Of that state. The case
WIS state Us Perkins. aud thc court h'lo
;rat there lad been 10 error either o
las or of f,r'. The Now Nork La"
Joprndl In d.syUss.rE the case point
to the following discussion Of ~" ques
tiops involved IN the American and Eng
l!sh Encyclopaedia Of Law:
After jeopardy has attached and
verdict Of acqu!ttal has been ronders,
such verdict cannot, on the applicato
pf the state, he set aside and a now tria
granted. no matter by what errors ON tn
part Of the court jury or prosecute
tine acquittal was obtained. and sta;ut
which authorize a new trial urde
such circumstances on the application q
. the Stat. rs iu violation of the oouSt.tu
toual prohibition against second j,op
'fas 49,. -.... g.,
li'' h"' '"'' '''"' - - =,
Iiln 'Nn'i'.'ul |I '"g 'I'' 80 '''
'''',' ~ "'. "''. -. ' ,t g., -,
supreme Gourt of Connecticut in state vs
Ice that "s,ct.cu 1881 Of the Genera
statutes which allows an appeal In Grim
!nnl cases tu be taken by the State. Wit
tho permission OF the presiding judge
from the ruling and decisions VI N
Superior Court. authorizes an appeal b.
the state in the nature Of motion FOR
, new trial after verdict or acquittal
The United states supreme Court M
held that q writ Of error does not lie Il
hrh'N "i IN" ht"d states IN 'f'.'n =
-, - S",,,''''' i.,,,,i, In .r,r,s.i,r
. ", III H. ,,.n,,,,t,,, I,u, % Jesfrnh,o th
,''"' , ,,.,..,,,,I s,,,s
.,>-,,..,.tot.ss ,b, ,,u, ~ cour,c,icu, |
,r,.,t',u,' ,rsrornbI, 10 ,hat ~ the Ead
p", a,,r,. ava of mos, n, the States
T,,n Lasi-ahii,tv ~ a rigb, of anneal Il
',i,,,t,'',I c,s.s A., order that m. law ma,
=, sn,,iad has be.r recornized nv corn
,,,,.,tiyalv recent Federal statutes confer
,t,g such right upon the Governmcn
yyh,r. II may 6e exercised without plac
,,c lefenaants in second ipopardv. More
over. tho discussion Of the Supreme Cour
81 Cnnn.cticut in tho Drincipal case sug
posts that no substantial injustice woul,
b, suffered by criminal defendants II tn