The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-10-18
NOVEL POINTS OF LAW.

f1tz1arrel va. BOYD passed on the Ia
bility OF the owner OF an automobile
with the result that the friend was in
Jured through the owners negligent
driving OF the automobile. Tho court
declared the owner liable. but one OF the
questions raised was whether the suit
would have been brought had the defend
ant not been protected by liability In
surance so that the company would have
to reimburse the defendant for any re-
covery against him The court said
while II may be conceded In this case
that the result OF the litigation will neces-
sarily AFFECT the interest OF a third party.
the casualty company, who Is not party
OF record. It does not follow because this
Is 20 that the suit Is collusive and ncti-
tlous. as alleged. II the real and primary
object OF the suit Is to redress the grew
ance OF the plaintiff. and there is an actual
controversy, involving real and substan-
tia1 rights between the parties to the rec
ord the suit would not be dismissed II In
only when the sole object OF the suit IL to
sffect third parties and when the interest
OF the parties to the suit IL not adverse,
and when there Is no real and substantial
controversy between those who appear as
adverse parties, that tho principles In
voked by the appellant here apply"
A case involving tho misconduct OF
Jurors was decided by the Minnesota Stu
preme Court In Thoreson W.. Quinn.
which says IL Ia misconduct on the part
OF Jurors in an action for injuries re-
suring from collision 20 examine
vehicle involved IN the collision or tho
place where Il occurred without the
Knowledge OF the court or the parties
and the complaining party Is entitled
to new trial II such misconduct had.
or might have had. an effect upon the
result unfavorable to him.
II was. however. held that II the court
can determine with reasonable certainty
that such misconduct did not affect the
result tho verdict should stand that the
duty to determine whether such miscon-
duct may have been prejudicial rests pri-
marily upon the trial court and that It's
determination thereof has the same
weight as It's Determination Of other dues-
lions OF fact and will not he reversed
whsre the record does NOT contain the
evidence upon which Il was based.
In c. percevaI. Inc, va. the Public For
| vice Commission. the Appellate Division
| OF the Supreme Court decided that re-
| uuiremsnt in the contract furnished by
an electric power company to its GUS
| toners that the customer must take all
| the power he uses from the power com
| pany, is not reasonable regulation.
| The facts in the case were that
| the plaintiff made arrangements 10
| take power from tho owner OF the build
| ing occupies during the day and pro
| posed 10 use power Of the Edison Com
many only At night The Edison Company
| refused 20 supply current under the cir
| cumstances on the ground that II was not
| Obliged 10 do 40 unless tho customer
| bought from the Edison Company all tho
/ electricity II required The Public Ser
! nphnl1 E1lGnp l.
pany. but the Appellate Division reversed
| the ruling and said
| ut In of course the rule that such
a corporation may establish reasonable
| regulations respecting the use OF tho SER
vice which Il proposes to furnish, and each
customer requiring the service n called
upon 10 comply with such regulations
| In our oplnion, however, the requirement
| that a consumer must take all OF It's
| electricity from one company or receive
| none at all In not IN. any proper sense 2
| regulation respecting the use OF the ser
vice but 10 a purely arbitrary attempt
~, the part OF the company TO insure Il
Itself a monopoly OF furnishing electriss
current"
The Hague laws OF war on land, draw
M In 1899 and 1907. and adopted by al
nations were designed TO check the RI
paclty OF conquerors and TO save van
du!shed States from organized spolatior
saws Case aud Comment. Pillage is for
mally forbidden. This Is n prohibition
against the looting OF captured towns
against acquiring booty AZ he expense o
private property. hut does not OF course
forbid the seizure OF horses, arms o
military supplies taken on the field o
battle.
The laws further permit a milltar
occupant 20 levy, in addition TO the or
binary taxes. money contributions for IN
needs OF the army or OF the administra
ton OF the occupied territory. Contribu
tions are TO be required only on n write
order and on the responsibility OF com
mander I'm chief Their collection Is I
be regulated by the rules I'm force for tn
assessment OF taxes. and In every cas-
a receipt Is 20 be given to the individual
mayer. But this voucher, while evidcnc
that money, goods or service have bee
exacted implies In itself no promise t
pay on the part Of the occupant
= Speaking further on the subject OF tn
} spoils of war, Case and Com Uent say
Il has been sought to justify the levy G
money contributions as a means Of ecu
. tsbly distributing military burdens b
placing them upon the inhabitants ger
orally instead OF upon a few individuals
and as making II possible 70 take none
In one place In order 10 pay for rcquis
lions in another place. The inflction {
general penalty, pecuniary or other
wise. on the population on account c
d individual acts for which II cannot b
= considered as collectively responsible
forbidden by the Hague regulations. ThI
provision Is designed TO restrict collectiy
I punishment by the imposition Of fines I
< offences for which the community. as di:
P tlngutshcd from individuals IL respor
sible. 1t Ia said. however. that the M
punished need not be violation OF III
laws and customs OF war, but may cor
, sist of a breach OF the occupants martii
. law regulations Damages done to raj
ways. teiegraphs, roads and bridges
the vicinity are cited as circumstance
warranting the infection Of reprissk,
, An attorney writing to Case and Con
nent Is out OF patience with tho practic
OF younger members OF the legal profe,
I sion who. In searching for precedent
q seem to neglect legal principles an
, merely try 10 find a case with state
ment OF fact similar to those in their ow
action. II they find one they consider
the law. whether IT Is based on SCUM
. principles or not The corresponds,
writes:
"A story Is told OF Justice Of the peaC
y In IA small rural town. trying cas-
against a railroad company for killing
hog that belonged 10 farmer tt
b lawyer for tho IN rtner and tina 1awy,