The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-05-06
CASES OF INTEREST
HUSBAND AS A VISIBLE MEANS

HUSBAND AS A VISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT.=A conviction of va grancy was reversed when the Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed the case of Brown vs. State, s79S South eastern Reporter, 1133. It appears ! that the accused was a married wo- man, but it seems that her husband was not properly supporting her. The court held. that she had that visible rneansN Of support,n the alleged ab- sence ofxwnich.,wa the ground of her lconviction. In disposing of the. case, it was said: s'It is punishment enough for woman to espouse a man unwill- ing to support her. Ger tain1y she is not to be c1assed as a +vagrant merely because she relies up-7 on compliance by her husband with the obligation imposed upon him by law. Married women are often com pe1led to supplement the income. which the ostensib1e head of the fam fly can earn; but they do this from stern necessity, and not because the law compels them to do it. .a* In the present state. of the law, the burden of supporting the family falls. upon the husband in return for which the law crowns him with the proud, but sometimes meaningless, title of .sheadsa of the family If he would wear the crown. he must bear the burden. Some day all this may be changed: but we are dealing with present-day law. and sufficient unto the davis the evil thereof. '''1s
 COLOR OF TITLE AND EFFECT OF WASHING AWAY OF LAND.- It4 is provided by statute in Iowa that one may recover from the owner of land for expenditures made for inn provements thereon, provided that
 held in good faith under color of title. Plaintiff in the present case obtained his color of title by way of a deed at a tax sale. Subsequently, to this, however, a river that flowed adjacent Iy to the land in question cut away parts of the property, thereby neces- sarily rendering the description of it as previously made in the tax deed much at variance with the present situation. In plaintiffs action for the Improvement expenditures, the de- fense was interposed that the color of title was defective because of this dis -crepancy in the tax deed. The Iowa Supreme Court held, in effect, that the fact that the property described by the deed had been washed away by the river and other land deposited in the same place would not prevent the deedafrom being color of title. Ben ton vs. Dumbarton Realty Company, 14S Northwestern Reporter. 586.
 SUING THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
 III c,sTd1lIOtu crew VOlunCSGTS to care for an injured trespasser, is the rail- road company liable for their negli- gence in such care? See Riley vs Gulf, C.A& s. F. By. Co. 16O South western Reporter, 596 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
 Young Oscar Riley had his foot mashed while attempting to steal a ride on railroad train. A physician was sent for but, while dressing the foot, was told by the conductor to give the foot merely temporary dress ing as the boy was to be taken to a hospital by the railroad. However he was left lying on a depot platform for four. hours, when he was finally taken to his home. Evidence brought out the fact that, due to delay in hay ing the foot properly dressed 1t had to, be amputated. Complainant ad- rnits that Riley was a. trespasser, but insists that, as long the railroad crew took charge of the boy, the rail- road company was liable for their negligence. The court holds that the evidence fails to show that appellee took charge of him, and says: eThe fact that the train crew did so does not establish that they were acting for the railroad. The conductor or the train crew had no authority to bind the company for their negligent of their employment, unless express authority is given or Is necessarily i'm piled It is well settled that there