The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-09-26
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.


A unique question OF liability In an
automobile accident case was decided By
the Supreme Court Of South Dakota
IN Van Horn vs.. simpson. which held
that where defendants were copartners
and were riding in an automobile in
partnership business, the negligence OF
the owner and partner In driving the
automobile was imputable to the other
partner. since as "a member OF the CO.
partnership the owner and driver was
his agent, aud both defendants were
jointly liable for injuries to a traveller
upon the highway. II is pointed out
that tn sc two defendants at the time
question were copartners in the real
estat' business. and that this auto was
then transporting both defendants In
the prosecution of such copartnership
business that IL was then being used
as an instrument for the benefit n
within the scope of the partne rship bust
ness that Simpson was not "A passenger
or grdtuituus guest Of Anderson In said
car. bat was "A party interested in the
purpose ana business In which such
ear was then being operated.
That testator committed suicide and
left his properly away from his mother
and brothers hsld proper for Considera-
ton on the issue Of testamentary ca
pacity.-In te Wasserman's Estate, Cal,
AS rae. 93i.
Proof Of injury to a passenger from
derailment Of q train. and of the cir
cumstarccs Of the wreck, held to cast on
the Il PENDANT carrier the burden OF
showing that it was not negligent.-Mid-
land Valley T.. Co. VS.. billiard. Okla,
lIS Pac. 1901.
That defendant speeded up his auto
mobile in the belief that the heifer,
afterward struck by the machine, would
pass him on one side did not show that
he was negligent as n matter OF law
Armann vs.. Caswell, n. D., 1852 n. w.
Sl3.
An intent to conceal his financial con-
dillon may be inferred from a bank
rupt's failure TO keep books or proper
books Of account-ln re Tinker, U. y.
D.. G.. egg Fed. i73.
That bullets was spelled "bulltes' and
prcmcditated "premediatted" did not. un-
der Gen. st. 1906. sec. 1862, vitiate an
indictment where the words were cor
rectly spelled in other portions thereof.
blackwell VS.. state, Fla, IS SO. 4T9.
$500, .
Inc supreme Iua,cia' ,ou.t va ~
otuSrtls mas uev.ueu
i-l'Nu t"'t u'uel 'He s'a,u',s 80 ~
guardianship lot sPehu,nr'iu ~ VIZ
Is under such Eudrulahsh'P 'an"o' """e
Il contract TO marry
" IT,,
.monE those called to the stand In a
ttsc rcccutly tried in an Ohio court was
an insurance adJus'eI' VINO hau pee.
sent ny nus company 10 auJus' lne los'
OF u huiI"lhg Wh'ch inquired u th's sur
no" ala the nre start. uenlanueu
the attorney lot the otheT sIue' hN'"s d
stern eye on the Witness.
y cpu.dht say certainly sd!u 'ne
au1ust''' 'dhd h'oodN seemed 'ole "
tel, put IL struck me mat II might haNe
been the result OF friction.
'Nhat DO you mean oy mat ue'
mlnd'l tle attorney
Nv ell aid the adJustr graNelF'
lyt'ti'n sometimes 'plles rom Iuopihs
"A sl","Uo polIcy on a s5'oVo pu'ldlng'
" =.
The existence or war IN Mexico u
ludi'talE recognized oy the court OF
Errors ~ Appeals OF New Jersey ~
N'll IS. central Leather company u
which the court writes the fo'lowlne
Tn" oihcIal ominunications by the
PRESIDENT 10 Congress lelNe no doupt Oh
room Tor a contrary inference that ~
November, 1918, ana 1919 ths
'a.Taiza n VIVA FORCES IN Mexlc'
We're ~rec"gniZe by our Government al
engaged IN actual war. the right OF th'
commander OF an army in actual pos
s'sS.. "i a large territory VINO observes
tho ordinary laws or war TO seize private
property 10 % Get MS military hecessitie'
docs h't depend on the existence OF Del
H-'iti'E ~ thc technical sense, nut or
the "N.St''ee OF belligerency IN TN
sons" or actually existing warfare INT
right OF a military commander 10 levy
contributions must he exercised in nc
cor!aucr with the laws OF war. Contr!
buttons must he levied by the com
mlrdcr In c.icr or by the general OF {
corps acting indcut ndently. BY agree
mcUt between Gen. villa. whose force!
wer" IN actual possession OF the distric
I'm Mexico, ard the citizens a wal con
~trlhI'lcn Wl~ assessed by commission
appointed by the taxpayers. one WHIT
was assessed failed 10 pay and propert!
: belonging Ia him was seized by virtue o
aI - III N-A l.