The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-07-19
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

The first opinions from court OF last
resort in the Interpretation OF a work
mems compensation act have been handed
down by 'he Supreme judicial Court of
Massachusetts in which the court con-
strues the provisions Of the Msssachu-
setts act concerning "wilful misconduct"
by an employer and also by an employee.
In the case of the former the compensa-
ton to the employee must be doubled
and In the case OF the latter the workman
is entitled to nothing.
In the matter of Burns the court rules
that serious and wilful misconduct" by
an employer Is more than gross or cul-
pabe negligence and Involves conduct Of
a quasi-criminal nature, the intentional
doing OF something either with knowledge
that Il is likely TO result in serious injury
or with wsnton and reckless disregard
of its probable consequences" IN the
matter Of Nickerson. in which serious
and wilful misconduct OF an employee
was alleged. the court holds that where an
employee engaged In cleaning and paint
ing began work around a moving shaft
shortly before the noon hour, when he had
been ordered to do the work at noon when
the machinery had stopped. his DISC
bedience was thoughtless act on the
spur of the moment rather than deliberate
disobedlence and does not deprive his de-
pendents OF compensation under the work
mems compensation act"
The Supreme Court OF the United States
decided in Sweeney. VS.. Erving that in
! fiictng burn on patient while max
ing an S-ray examination 10 not OF Itself
evidence OF the neglg ence OF the ply
sician. The court also held that a ply
sician TO whom n patient Is sent by
another physician OF recognized ability
| for an N-ray examination may rely on
/ the latter's judgment as TO tho patients
ability to undergo the examination with
out harm, and II under no obligation him
self 70 make an examination into his
condition TO learn that fact.
Under a recent English decision in Rob
/ eIts VS. Gray the Court OF Kings Bench
| decides that an agreement by an infant
/ 10 Join a professional billiard player in
billiard playing tour is one for his cdu-
cation and instruction, and so binding
upon him and enforc!ble against him.
The highest court or Australia decides
| In Richards VS. Lothian that the principle
that the person who for hts own purposes
brings on his land and keeps there any
. AlllUE lhFlN 10 w MISCHIEF II II escapes,
must keep ii In at his peril, and II he does
not do so II prlma facie answerable for
the damage which is the natural conse-
quetce Of its escape Is not applicable in
the case OF injury TO the goods OF a tenant
by the overflow OF water on an upper
floor controlled by the landlord, caused by
the malicious act OF a third person In
{ turning on the water and plugging the
waste pipe.
The court reverses a decision against
the landlord on the ground that 1t was
not due to hls own fault.
The Supreme Court OF Mississippi! de-
cides In Phillips VS. Garner that monkey
must not be permitted TO run at large
and II II escapes from n cage and does
harm to persons by biting or SCRATCHING
them the owner is answerahlo in damages
The court said: The case OF May VS.
Burdett, Eng. Rep. is a leading case or
this subject In that case a woman wa.
bitten by monkey and the owner held
liable. II was decided therein that tn,
owner. II he would keep the animal, wa.
bound to keep It secure ut all events
In 'Hale's Pleas Of the Crown the author
in referring 10 the liability Of the ownc,
for injuries done by a wild animal says
Though he has no particular notice tina
he did any such thing before, yet II 1
be beast tina: Is fere nature, az
lion a bear. wolf, yea an ape or monkey
, II he get loose and do harm to an,
person the owner is liable TO an actor
. for the damages. and so I knew II ad
Judged in Andrew Bakers case. who's
! child was bit by monkey that broke hi
chain and got loose. And therefore I,
case OF such a Wild beast, or in cas-
. OF bull or COW, that doth damage. wher
the owner knows Of IT, he must at his peri
keep him up safe from doing hurt, 60
though he use his diligence 10 keep hin
up, II he escape and do harm. the owne
Is liable to answer damages In the cas-
OF Molloy vs.. Starin the court said tina
the liability OF an owner Of wild anlma
Is absolute, and he is bound TO keep tn
animal secure or he must suffer the pen
atty for his failure to do so in maxim
compensation for the mischief done"
> s. +. Davis, Mississippi lawyer
I writing In Case and Comment OH tn
5 negro law OF the state. says IL Is com
! posed partly OF the common law, statu
= tory law and the "unwritten law" an
; that THE judges. lawyers and Jurors n
know that some OF our laws are intende
: to be enforced against everybody other
enforced against white people and other
! cenforced only against negroes, There ar
{ some things declared TO be a crime while
= negro may do with IMMUNITY and neve
ne lnoltsleu Wn!le n Wnltc man would e.
ten years in the pententiary for the sam
thing The case In point is the crime O
bigamy, II being not uncommon for a pre-
: siding judge TO instruct a grand jury {
take no notice OF the fact that a negr
has more than one wife.
on the subject Of the negro law o
gambling the writer says:
Under our criminal statute Il is
misdemeanor for any person to wage
any money or other valuable thing O
any game o. chance or TO play for none
AT any game OF cards or dice &C. bu
II Is the unw-itten law--and the unwri,
ten law applies IN this case-that a
negroes may play a game OF chance wit
dice, commonly called craps. for money o
, any other valuable thing on Saturds
nights or any time during tho frst day O
the week. commonly called Sunday, pro
vided, however II Ia conducted In a que'
! orderly manner in vacant cabin or cot
ton house on the back side OF the planta
. ton But II IL also the urwr!tten law @
, this State that white person must nc
at any time or place, for either love o
money or any other valuable thing, pla
J game OF craps. that being recognize
as n negro game exclusively. 1t IL ais
, the unwrltten law OF this State that a
, white persons may play game q
,ba rdS ~.