The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-11-09

A JOY RIDE WITH DISAGREEABLE AFTER EFFECTS. With slight omis- sions. the language of the Georgia court of appeals in Jordan vs. State, s1 Southeastern Reporter, s5e. Is sub as follows: Tt appeared from the evidence that Hawkins. whose father instituted the prosecution against the defendant. Jordan. was only 20 years of age, and like the average normal youth, enjoyed the society of the fair sex whenever possible, and regardless of MT. Kipling's assertion that the female of the species Is more deadly than the male,' it seems that he often braved danger and was more or less a general beau, and did not by any means confine his attentions to one, or even two, of the neighboring girls, but was in the habit of indulg- ing in the usual innocent attentions, $ oing to church on several occasions with different young ladies, and as opportunity afforded, rendering deli cate attentions in the way of Coca Cola drinks and gifts of picture films; that on a particular Sunday he met Miss Heisel. and paid her some atten- tion in her mothers presence, drinking Coca Cola with them; that later, on the day of the occurrence out of which this prosecution arose, he met Miss Heisel and the daughter of the defen- dant in the afternoon on public street and bought crackers and Coca Cola for them, and finally started to ac- company them on their way home that an .omobile drove up with two young men of their acquaintance occupying the car, who, at the request of the two girls, took them to the home of the girls, with Hawkins; and that when they reached there the girls said some- thing about continuing the ride, and said their parents would not object, provided they returned by dark. The ride was continued, and on reaching the town of Harrison, one of the girls suggested that they continue to the next town, and the driver agreed to this. After starting on their return trip, tire blew out and after spend- ing an hour or so in getting the ear In condition 1t was about 8 o'clock when they got back to MT. Jordan's. When they reached MT. Jordan's house they found him standing in the road waiting for them, and upon coming UP to him he appeared to be very angry and threatened to kill them. The moth CT of Miss Heisel began whipping flaw kins with a buggy whip, and hit him over the head with the butt end and broke his hat. being continually urged on by MT. Jordan. While she was a pistol pointed at him, and Hawkins backed down the road trying to ex- plain, but was not allowed to do SO. He never knew that Mrs. Burnett ob- : jected to his paying her daughter at tentions. nor did he know why she got angry with him." The court held that parents have authority to use |. l., .J ters from seduction or debauchery. but may not assault an apparent suitor merely on the assumption that he may prove to be a seducer, unless the known facts and circumstances are suf- ficient to legitimately induce this con clusion.
 PROHIBITING TOBACCO IN CITIES. The city of Zion. H., adopted an ordi : nance making 1t an offense to use or to carry tobacco on any of the streets or in the parks or the public buildings of the city; but the supreme court of Illinois in city of Zion vs. Behrens, 104 Northeastern Reporter, S36, de- clared the ordinance void, using the following language: Recognizing that tobacco smoke is offensive to many per sons, and in exceptional cases harmful to some, we have no doubt that power
 
 public places, such as street cars. the- atres, and like places where large numbers of persons are crowded to- gether in a small space. But this is quite a different matter from prohibit ing smoking on the open streets and in parks of a city, where the condi- tions would counteract any harmful re- suits. The personal liberty of the citi- zen cannot be interfered with unless the restraint is reasonably necessary to promote the public welfare. The only case that has been called to our at- tention that lends any support to the defendant in errors contention is Com vs. Thompson. 12 Meto. (Mass.) 231. In that case the supreme court of Massachusetts sustained a statute which made it an offense to lighted pipe or cigar on any of the streets of the city of Boston. Tn that case the law was upheld on the ground that 1t tended to protect the city against damage from fire This seems to be the only case in the United States where an ordinance or statute forbidding smoking of tobacco, in any form, on streets or public grounds, has been sustained. While we have a very high regard for the decisions of the supreme court of Massachusetts. still we are constrained in this instance to decline to follow the doctrine of the Thompson case.a It will be seen that the ordinance in question cannot be sustained on the ground that 1t tends to protect the property of the city from damage by fire. If the ordi- nance were limited to places where quantities of highly combustible ma terials were collected. it would be less objectionable. Tn the broad language Tn which the ordinance Is enacted if is apparently an attempt on the part of the municipality to regulate and con- trol the habits and practices of the citizen without any reasonable basis
 for so doing. The ordinance Is an
 unreasonable interference with the pri-
 vate rights of the citizen and must be held void"
 RACE SEGREGATION. A city ordi
 nance made 1t unlawful for colored
 person to occupy. as residence, a
 house upon a street on which greater
 number of houses were occupied by
 white than by colored people. It con
 taired similar provision as to white
 people. This was passed under the au-
 thority of section of the charter pro-
 viding that the board of aldermen
 might pass ordinances which it mighl
 deem wise and proper for the good
 order, good government, or general
 welfare of the city, etc Upon appeal
 from a conviction under this ordinance
 the supreme court of North Carolina
 fin State VIZ Darnell, s1 S. B. 83S, in