The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-12-26
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana has
held In City of New Orleans W.. Kicker
that whether the existence of bubonic
plague in a city involves such danger as
to require the r~atproofng Of all build
ings and structures is a question of
public policy for the legislative depart
ment. Accordingly the court upholds an
ordinance Of the Board OF Health re-
quiring %ratproofing of structures.
In Gutfreund vs.. williams. In the
Supreme Court Of Iowa November.
1915. 1874 N. W.. 1881. 1t was laid down
that while a Quotient verdict is i'm
proper. a verdict Professionally deter
mined by striking an average Of the
opinions Of the twelve Jurors. without
any agreement to make the amount so
arrived at binding. is not invalid. The
court said:
Neither h nature Of the action nor
the Issues involved on the trial Is dis
closed In the abstract. The verdict was
for &104.s3, and It is said that the Jurors
in arriving thereat were guilty Of mis-
conduct In that they returned q quotient
verdict. Six Of them made affidavit
that:
I'VE first agree that each juror would
mark down a certain sum which they
thought the plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover as his measure OF damages and
divide the sum by IL. Thai sale agree.
ment was first entered into and agreed
to by all the Jurors and then IA Juror
named his amount and placed on a piece
OF paper an amount he thought the
plaintiff was entitled to recover. then
adding all together and dividing the said
sum by ~. then adding interest at 6
per cent. That this method OF arriving
at our verdict was adopted. with a re-
suit as show by our verdict returned
in said cause"
Railroad. starting its freight train
with only the usual and necessary noises
connected herewith. held not liable for
injury to plaintiff. who's horse was
frightened. ran away and threw her out.
-Dotson VS.. Michigan Cent. X. Co.,
Mich. ". w, 1865.
Though plaintiff. when awakened,
found his head between the rods of his
bed. the railroad company, whose car
crashed through the fence in front Of
PLAINTIFFS residence, held not liable for
the injuries sustained by plaintiff i'm ex-
Treating his head.-Louisviile and N. r.
Co. vs. Chambers. KY, 17S s. w. 1101.
Supreme Court Justice Lamm OF Mis-
souri,. writing an opinion or "specks' in
Skillman w. Clardy. said: There were
many objections made to the validity of
the a Judgment and Iced on many al
legged defects. In oral argument learned
counsel for appellants conceded a group
OF them were small ones. taken severally
n one at a time. but he insists with
spirit that ttaken collectively as an ag-
gregation) they had n cumulative ef-
feet and invalidated the title. He illus
trated his position by the homely prop
osition at our bar. to wit.
Enough specks make an apple rotten
The enough specks theory. thus making
it's virgin and blushing bow on the stage
or real estate law, ma well excite a
mild judicial interest-an interest to be
tempered by a word Of caution. thus: II
comparisons are not 'odious,' as some
writers put II. they may be 'odorous as
others will have H.. and finally, in deal
ing with similitudes must We not be
chastencd by the thought that 40 great
"a jurist as Lord Mansfield found II wise
TO declare tso Lord westb,ry vouches)
that nothing in law Is so apt to mislead
az a metaphor We are old at the
mothers knee that continual dropping
wears away a stone. that enough pebbles
change the courses Of rivers, that while
one swallow may not. yet NAM swal-
lows may. make a summer. and why
may not many specks spoil an apple?'
A unique case was decided by The Su-
preme Court of Minnesota In Terrill vs..
Virginia Brewing Company. in which the
court holds that a boys sled does not
come within the purview OF a statute
regulating motor vehicles. The action
was brought to recover damages for the
alleged wrongful death of plaintiff
intestate. a boy of IL years, who was
killed while coasting down hill on a
street by his sled coming in collision
with a sleigh of the defendant which was
coming up the hill or the left hand side
Of the street. The defendant argued
that the boy violated the statute gov
erning the operation OF motor vehicles
on n public highway In approaching a
curve where the view was obstructed
at a speed In excess Of six miles an
hour 1T is sufficient to say" observed
the court. that this is the first time w
have heard "A boys sled called a motor
vehicle. The contention is wholly un-
tenable."
There is very little in the books upon
proof of wills by attesting witnesses who
have lost their eyesight. The recent case
of Reynolds VS. Sewer. l65 Ky. l5S. l7t
:. W. 96l. holds that inability of an at
testing witness to identify the will and
his signature thereto because of failure
of sight does not defeat probate. II he
testifies to the proper execution and AT.
testation OF a will. and the other attest.
ing witnesses, besides giving similar ties.
timony. identify the will offered as IN,
one attested by such witness.
In Thomas VS.. State. in the Suprem,
Court OF Alabama. II was laid down tina
I right of castle" that Ia. to stant
ones ground without retreating and de
fcnd ones self against an assailant
only applies to the house, and the yaro
Is not within its protection" The rul,
has been extended by the sam cour
In I'm vs.. State. where the court said
while ones house formerly meant hi
home. his dwelling, the rule has ais,
been extended to ones place of business
or his place Of refuge, consequently