The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-01-11
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

A unique case involving the old pre-.
sumption Of martial coercion in Grim
inal cases 10 reported by the London Lac
JoS,wdI In Rex VS.. Mary Ann Green. In
which IL appeared that the prisoner and
man named Russei. were Jointly In
dicted for stealing two suits OF clothes
from Q pawnoroker's shop. The prisoners
we're undefended. and when the ease
against them was presented there vas 20
suggestion that they we're connected with
each other, but IL was presumed that
they were accidentally In tire shop at the
same time. After both had been found
guilty a detective said he believed there
was some relationship between them. bu,
Russell objected to this evidence ard !,
was shut out After they were sertecced
IL was discovered that they were husban nd
and wife. The female prisoner appealed
from conviction. and not only did she fail
to raise the point OF marital coercion bu,
she insisted that she didn't know the CO.
defendant. In spite Of this the Court OF
Criminal Appeal felt bound to ouash her
conviction on the ground Of the won,ans
relationship with Russell probably for the
reason that the woman was undefended
and was unaware Of her legal rights.
Speaking Of this English case the New
York LdU Journal says that the Supreme
Court Of New Jersey In state vs. Martini
held that a woman selling obscene postal
cards In her husbands store was pre-.
sumcd to be doing 10 under his coerc, on
while a decision Of the Court OF Appea is
Of New York In People vs. Ryland In 1881
that whatever OF a criminal nature the
wife does in the presence of her husband
is presumed to be compelled by him" is
st!ll controlling. The LdU Journd, SAYS.
The sentiment OF the bar undoubtedly
is against the extension OF the presump.
ton OF marital coercion. We are of opln-
ion. not merely that strict bounds should
he set against its extension. but that IA,
presumption should be abrogatcd alto.
ge;her This English case is a good ev.
ample Of tho embarrassment Of justice
that occasionally results from retaining
certain rcstigcS OF the ancient married
women's status before the law
while therefore on this side OF the At.
lant!c ~ well az In England the tendency
- To minimize the force OF the pi.sunp-
ton OF matrimonial coercion. common Jaw
principles stlll prevailing In some States
obviously defeat justice. and there ~ u,
Justification for retaining such prcsump
ton even IN a mild form. II is inde.
too customary for women to receive henc
tit OF sex in some measure in any crlmina
prosecution, and technical rules to- en-.
courage iuries in going further In mis- III.
rection may be- positively harmful
Tie supreme Court Of Florida. II
standard Phosphate co. w. Lunn. hold!
that the mere fact that matter pu
into stream by two defendants. each a
its separate plant located at dlfferen
points may have united or iutavmlnelet
in Increasing the injurious consequence,
10 the plaintiff's land lower down Tia,
stream. and that the damage don" h,
each defendant may. because Of such iu
termingl'ng Of consequences. be difficult,
OF ascertainment, do not render the de
PENDANTS liable to an action as Joint tor
fsasors so as TO make each liable for tn
damage done by both whore there is u,
common purpose or concert OF action -
intention TO act together. either actual %
implied by law. and where the injury wa
not caused by the union or in,cr,ningl!n,
OF the matte. put into the stream
The Docket reports that the recent cas-
of Collctt vs.. Collett before the kansa
c'ty Court of Appeals had very mucl
the same attitude toward the parties &
marriage partnership as that Of nu ~,
, Tennessee mountaineer who. in reply {,
the plea of a good roads expert that suc
roads would enable the people of tn
mountains to haul their corn to the mar
XVI. stated tndt tHtN Tuaue ttltII cor
| into moonshine and fought II out and ha
no use for roads for the court In thi
case stated
"Dscorj ruled their home and cause
them to quarrel and even fight over tn
most trivial things. Both were adopts i
connublal dsputation and they w,r
evenly matched In physical contest,
Neither treated the other with kudncs
and affection and neither should prevail
t,,t A nrtN. g.. ,,lt,
~ this character to be entitled to q de
cree OF divorce must show not ONLY tina
he IL an injured party. but also that Il
IS innocent of breach of marital duty
Defendant suffered many indiCutics fror
her spouse but she repaid him IN kline
and frequently was the aCErcssor. TIL
same may he said of plaintiff. /, Wa
six Of one and half a dozen OF the other
and they finally separated from mutua
exhaustion and disgust"
The provisions OF the Fedora natu
ralization statute extending the privilege
OF citizenship to free white persons
| and % persons of AFRICAN nativity" an
African descent" have been found b
the courts to be uncertain. Hmbiguou
/ and difficult OF construction and applUa
ton. Under II they have excluded Mon
; rolians, Japanese. Chinese. half hrcc
4 Indians and whites and have adm!tte
MeXicars, Syrians. Armenians. Naronitc
| and parsecs. The latest decision. .
payte Shahd. 205 Federal Reporter 81.
J restricts the term ere" white persons
to persons OF European habitancy or Il"
scent. while AFRICAN nativity" or M
! rican descent" means the negro races q
| Africa or their descendants
: \ correspondent of tho DoctC say
that the first case tried in the Unit"
States District Cour, at The 500, Mich
was the United States vs James New
! some on a charge of white SLAVERY,
! The defendant was black man. Tn
/ woman whom he was accused Of brin'
| ing from Superior. Wis, To- The So
Mich, and consequently across the virty
, Gus lines OF two sovereign States, wa
, an exceedingly black woman and gay
! testimony In the case Defendants al
torney put everybody in good hume
especially the jurors) when In his ao
! dress 20 the jury he said
Before you can convict In this cas-
YOU must find beyond reasonable dout
that the woman in the case IL "A whit
slave. II you say that upon your oath
, gentlemen. I suppose We must abide h
your verdict, But permit Inc 10 say I
! you after tho case rs over. that | fee
+, sure YOU are color blind
The jury acquitted the defendant.