The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-08-16
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

The Court OF Civil Appeals OF Iexas
held In Missouri, Kansas and Texas Ran
way against Hacker that where pnoto-
graph tracings Indicating the weakness
of the pulse OF the plaintiff In a personal
injury action and also traclngs showing
the impairment of his vision were proved
to have been taken with scientific ac-
curacy such evidence was properly re-
ceived The tracing OF the heartbeats
was offered in support Of evidence that
the pulsations increased from 100000,
nc rmal, to $4,000 day, which was alb
moi nal. The tracing was made by at
tachlng an instrument to the wrist OF the
patient. Fastened TO the instrument IL
needle and slip OF paper. AS the IN
strument n species OF clockwork, moves
over the paper the pulse wave is pro-
duced by the lowering and elevating Of
the needle by the pulsebeat.
In discussing this modern mode OF Civ
ing scientific proof Of the accuracy of
testimony the court said
"New as this process is, experiments
made by scientific men. as shown by this
record, have demonstrated It's power 20
reveal to the natural eye the entire struc-
ture OF the human body. and that its
various parts can be photographed as It's
exterior surface has been and now Is.
And no sound reason was assigned at
the bar why civr court should not avail
itself OF this invention. when II was APP
parent that II would serve to throw light
on the matter In controversy Maps and
diagrams of the locus in quo drawn by
hand are often used to aid a Judge or "a
jury to an Intelligent conception OF the
matters to he determined. and no one
would think Of questioning the compe-
tency of the testimony of witness who
stated that he knew the map or diagram
to he entirely accurate. and who then
| used 1t to illustrate or make plain his
| statement The pictorial representation
OF the condition OF the broken leg OF the
| plaintiff gave to the jury "A much more
| intelligent idea of that particular injury
| than they would have obtained from any
verbal description of II by surgeon.
even II he had used for the purpose the
simplest terms of his art"
\ suit for personal injuries resulting
! from fright was heard by the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massac husetts in Con-
/ ley Va. United Drug Co, In which tho
Court held that one who by reason OF
/ fright caused by an explosion faints
and is injured by falling may recover
! for the injury resulting, although there
I can be no recovery for the fright alone.
| The court however. reversed judgment
against the defendant on the following
! ground:
| IAN that the evidence presented shows
/ Is that the tank at the moment OF the
explosion was upon the defendants prem
1 lS'9' ff'N II happened 10 De there,
whether rightfully or otherwise and how
long II had remained there does not app
pear; nor Is tn re any ev dence to show
| that such tanks or their contents were
manufactured. used or dealt In by the
defendant In connection with It's business
| There is no evidence to show the natur,
of the business the defendant was en-
gagged In, and nothing to show that it
| knew or had any reason 10 believe that
the tank was on it's premises until after
the explosion occurred. Under these cir
cumstanccs there In no evidence to war
ran. a finding that the defendant had any
contro' over IT, or was in any way re-
sponsine for its presence"
Because the panel Of special jurors who
tried him vas drawn an hour before the
date set i'm the order providing for the
jury. William &. Damron, convicted OF
grand larceny in the first degree. will
have = new tiill 10y an order of the
Court Of Appeals reversing his corv,c-
ton. In explaining how the rights Of
the defendant were prejudiced through
the drawing Of the jury an hour before
the time fixed. the Court of Appeals said {:
such variance, serious as II is,
doubtless might he disregarded II II had
passed unnoticed until after conviction
| without objection or remonstrance. but
when 1t is attacked directly and season.
~
Is neither technical nor unsubstantal.
To treat it as such would be virtually to
repeal the statutory provision which en-,
titles the defendant to know by means of
the order for the drawing the actual
time when the special jury is drawn. His
deprivation OF this right cannot be sane
toned on the assumption that he may
have consented to the earlier hour or may
not have intended To be present at the
drawing In person or by counsel"
Lam Notes says that IL there Is any
thing In a name II must be difficult to
get new trial before Judge Alfred Bulge
of the Fifth District Court of lhaho.
Similarly. lawyers can try their cases
with perfect confidence before Judge NJ.
H. Justice of the Superior Court Of North
Carolina. ny the same token. the out
come of litigation must be exceedingly
doubtful when Judge 4. T. Gamble OF the
Second Circuit of AlabaDa Is on the
bench Dilatory motions probably find
little favor with Judge James c. Work OF
the orphans Court OF Fayette county.
. Pennsylyania. one OF the best equipped
mon on the bench Is Judge Ben Il. Law OF
the Ninth Judicial DistAot Of Montana.
And finally. not to prolong the list UNI
duly. we advise attorneys to keep quiet
before Judge Orien :. Cross OF the Michi-
| gan Circuit Court.
In upholdlng convictions on circum-
stantial evidence Justice Furman Of Ok
lahoma says that investigation will show
that much larger percentage OF per
sons have been convicted improperly upon
direct and positive evidence. The Saviour
of mankind was crucified upon direct and
false testimony which PLATE himself
did not believe. but which he acted
upon on account of the clamor of the
rabble. stephen. the first martyr In be-
. half of Christianity after the crucifxion
of Christ, was convicted and executed
upon direct and perjured testimony.
"lf we are going to reject circumstan-
tial evidence because at some remote time
and in distant localities some few per-
sons may have been unjustly convicted
, thereon. we should be consistent, and we
must also reject all testimony, because
great many more persons have been
. unjustly convicted on direct testimony
Z than have ever been convicted on cir
cumstantial testimony"
| The Supreme Court OF Appeals of West
Virginia in Raleigh County Bank vs. Po-
teet holds, with two members dissenting
I that "a stipulation in "A negotiable promis-
: sorry note for the payment of % per cent
collection fees on the principal thereof
: and In addition thereto $40 attorney fee
in addition To the attorneys fee taxed OF
all h. 10 iS In tat for