The Oskaloosa herald., 1914-02-05

not been for this, we are. satisfied he
would have been acquitted. APP,
pellant was tried for grand larceny,
and not for lying. He deserves a
good whipping for lying, but lie, un.
less told under oath, is not a peniten,
tiary offence" The following part of
the opinion is TO the effect that al.
though defendant did wrong in telling
lie, yet he should not be judged
harshly, for even the wisest and best
men come for short of perfection. De-
PENDANT was, clearly frightened when
arrested, and this brought forth the
lie. Courts. and juries should make
due allowance for the weakness and
frailties of human nature. The
twelfth chapter of Genesis, 18th and
10th verses, is then cited, where il is
found that Abram, the father of the
faithful and who was called 1.-The
friend of God" when he became
frightened, not only told lie himself,
but commanded his wife to do the
same thing. "Abram acted in a much
more reprehensible manner than this
appellant did. This shows conclus-
lively that fright, as well as guilt, is
often the cause of falsehood We
think this is a reasonable explanation
of all of the circumstances against
the appellant" The conviction is set
aside and defendant is granted a new
trial.
The defendants in O'Neil v. Car
dina, 14O Northwestern Reporter, 1876,
are husband and wife who were in
the habit of ordering beer through
the agency of the plaintiff, and are
now sued for a balance of indebted
ness so arising. On the trial the
court excluded evidence that Carolina
and his wife We're both in the habit
of drinking beer, and instructed that
the wife could not be held liable for
the purchase price of the beer as up
on a claim for family expenses. Plain
tiff assigns these rulings of the
court as grounds for reversal. The
Supreme Court of Iowa holds that the
rulings are free from error. Quoting
the court: There is a sense in which
eXtravagant raiment, jewelry, and
numberless other articles not classed
as necessarieS may yet be deemed
family expenses, and as having some
place in maintaining members of the
family in accordance with their ac-
tual or. assumed station in lite. But
none of the reasons which have been
thought sufficient for so holding has
any application to the purchase of in
toXicants unless it may be purchases
made for strictly medicinal purposes.
Whether this suggested exception eX-
lists we need not now decide. We are
not willing to take the step which ap-
pellant demands, and thus make 1t
possible for the liquor dealer to compel
wife to pay for the drink which has
demoraliZed her husband, and cast
upon her the burden of standing
alone between her family and starv-
alton"
Is turkey an animal? In Holcomb
V. Van Zylen, l4O Northwestern Re-
porter, 521, defendants dog raised
havoc" with plaintiffs turkeys, and
the damage which resulted is sought
to be recovered under a statute of
Michigan providing that if any dog
kills, wounds. or worries any sheep,
etc, or other domestic animal" it's
owner shall be liable in double the
amount of damages sustained. AS
turkeys are not specifically named in
the statute, to be embraced within
its terms the authority for such
can only lie in the words
or other domestic animal" The
Supreme Court of Michigan holds that
an animal is properly defined as any
animal being which is not human, en-
dowed with the power of bodily mo-
ton, and that this definition is suffi-
GENTLY comprehensive to include tur-
keys or other fowls. The opinion in
tins case is nv Judpp Bird Very an.