The broad ax. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1895-19??, 1915-08-07


PARrURE From STATE-A man OF fam
ily who departs from the state to Sc
cure employment, with no definite In
tention Of returning, Is held in the
tennessee case OF Keelin o. Graves,
165 s. w. 232, annotated In l. r. A.
1e15A, 421, to lose his right to ex-
emptions, and subjects the property to
attachment, although he leaves his
family in the state, and expects to re-
turn there when he secures employ
ment which win justify him IN so
doing.
FOOD-UNFT-LIABM FOB PROyID-
ISG.-A son living with his father and
mother on his fathers farm was car
rying on the farming operations. He
arranged with his parents to board
his hands. The plaintiff was en-
ployed by him as a laborer for stipu-
lated wages and board. The father
purchased, and the mother cooked and
served, meat which, when put upon
the table, was tainted and unwhole-
some. The evidence tended to show
that the bad condition was apparent
while the meat was cooking. The
plaintiff became sick by partaking Of
II. It Is held In Malone VS.. Jones, 81
Kan. SIS, 139 Pac. 3S7, L. r. A. 1915A,
32S, that the son Is liable for negli-
gence in providing unwholesome food,
and that the father and mother, hav-
ing Jointly undertaken to provide the
board, are equally liable for negli-
gently cooking and serving it.
FORMER JEOPARDY - CONTRIBUTING
TO DELINoUENCY-RAPE.-A conviction
or an acquittal upon one indictment
is no bar to a subsequent conviction
F, and sentence upon another, I'M
less the evidence required to support
conviction upon one Of them would
have been sufficient to warrant a con-
viCtion upon the other. The test is
not whether the defendant has al
ready been tried for the same act, but
whether he has been put in jeopardy
for the same offense. A single act
may be an offense against two stat
| utes; and II each statute requires
proof Of an additional fact which the
other does not, an acquittal or con-
viction under either statute does not
exempt the defendant from prosecu-
ton and punishment under the other.
So where a person has been in jeopar-
dy upon an information or afidavit
charging that he contributed to the
delinquency Of a female person, in
violation Of section 1854, General
Code, such jeopardy, 1t is held in the
Ohio case Of State VS.. Rose, log N. E.
so, annotated In L. r. A. I9I5A, 256,
cannot be successfully pleaded as a
bar to a prosecution by indictment on
a charge Of rape under section 12413,
General Code. The provision Of the
Constitution relating to jeopardy is In
the following words: mo person
shall be twice put in jeopardy for the
same offense. The offense charged in
the information is not the same Of
Tense and does not include the offense
charged in the indictment, and hence
the defense Of jeopardy must fail
HUSBAND AND WIFE-INJURY BY
Vicious Doe-LIABILITY OF HUSBAND.
That man Is liable for injury COM
mitted by vicious dogs harbored by
his wife upon her property, notvith-
standing he was absent from the coun-
try and had no knowledge Of their
presence. Is held in the Tennessee
/ case Of Missio G. Williams, 167 s. W..
473, L. r. A 1915A, 500.
Observation-Disclosures Ivy.
Chance contact with poison ivy which
results In death is held in Railway
Mail Asso. VI. Dent,-C. c. A. =, 213
Fed. 9S1, L. R. A. 1854, 314, to be
within the operation of a policy in
surfing against death from accident,
but providing that no sum shall be
due unless the accident alone results
in producing visible external marks
Of injury or violence, nor unless the
death results wholly from that injury.
But 1t is further held that chance con-
tact with poison ivy which results in
the spread Of an eruption over the
body and death Is not within q pro-
vision In an accident insurance policy
exempting the insurer from liability
where death results from poison
taken or administered accidentally
or otherwise.