The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-13
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.
The Supreme Court OF wisconsin h,

NJ ~, theA' h"Af ,'iAhicN tfote hAfs''@ ''N
state Board of Agriculture. which con-
Quoted the fair and arranged for the
flying exhibition, because the board was
performing n governmental function In
holding the fair and engaging the avia-
tor for the purpose of giving entertain
ment to the public and attracting
crowds. For this reason negligence by
members. agents or officers of the board
does not render the board liable.
In a similar case before the courts
Of New York in Arnold vs.. State it Yves
held that the State is liable. The APP
pellate Division. Third Department.
ruled that where the State acting
through the State Fair Commission per-
mits a race Of high powered automobiles
capable OF the speed Of sixty miles an
hour. to be held or State fair grounds
on a track originally made for horse
races and only protected by a wooden
fence of nimsy construction and incapa-
BILE OF resisting the impact OF such ma
chimes, It is liable In damages for death
or injury caused by IA racing machine
which when n tire burst left the track
and breaking the fence plunged into a
crowd OF spectators"
The Supreme Judicial Court Of Mas
sachusetts has advised the Senate Of
that state that "A proposed statute pro-
hibiting railroad corporations under q
heavy penalty from discharging an en-
ployee by reason of Information touch
ing his conduct until after ne has been
given an opportunity to make a state
ment in the presence Of the person or
persons furnishing the Information, would
violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the
Federal Constitution prohibiting a state
from depriving any person OF lie,
liberty or property without due process
of law. since the right to contract or 10
purchase or sell labor is part of the
"liberty" guaranteed thereby. and would
also violate the Massachusetts constitn-
tional guarantees OF the right TO ac-
auire. possess and protect property.
which right includes the right to make
reasonable contracts. The Senate was
further advised that such proposed
statute. having no reference to the
safety OF the travelling public and APP
plying only to one kind of carrier. woulh
impose a burden to which other en-
ployees OF labor are not subject. AM
give to railroad employees privileges
and immunities not enjoyed by other
EMPLOYEES, and In both respects you'd
tend to destroy equality and ahridge
the privileges and immunities or citl-
zens Of the United States.
A tin drinking cup not being essentia,
10 the operation of a train, failure OF
the railroad to furnish II cannot he sad
10 be negligence. so as TO render II
|liable for injury 10 a brakeman when
seeking one.-Baltimore and Ohio Raj
road Company VS.. WhItacre. Nd, ~
All. 1860.
Under Kirby's Dig. section 263s and
act February s, 1867, the collateral KIT
dred of a decedent who was born a
slave and who traced their descent from
decedcnt's mother. who was twice mar
rled, might inherit from decedent,-NN-
| son VS.. Storthz, Ark, lT5 ;. w. 10.
In constituting a statute making IL I'M
Ia awful 10 permit rams TO run AT large
! during "A specified season the supreme
Court Of Montana has decided that the
! offence consists In permitting the rams
10 run at large and not alone the RUE
ming at large.
The question of discrimination in the
/ reading OF the Bible In public schools
was passed on by the Louisiana SUI
! preme Court in Herold Ns. Parish Board
| OF School Directors, in which II appeared
| that "A Roman Catholic n a jew CONF
planned that their rights were thus as
| terminated against. u 'bhiA NlNN''
the contention OF the Jew and prohibited
the reading, but ruled that there was no
discriminate against the Roman Cath
olic. Tho Board of Education contcndcd
that a Catholic or Jewigh Bible might
be read 10y the teachers under It's ieso-
luton but the Catholic plaintiff even
objected 10 his own Bible IN the ground
that every child is taught that there
should he no reading NJ the Bible with
50, IH tina lalH
Of his own church. To this the court
said:
The Catholic child may or may not
be prohibited from reading the B.p'e
: without such authoritative comment
but such prob. bition would not be a doe
I t-lne Of that church or creed. Md IN
view of the very recent ~uiterauceS 81
his Emiucncc Cardinal Gibbons one
would not think that such prohibition
can exist. That eminent man of Goo
and h!gh churchman, In a recent SER
mon. polnted TO his own college days
when he SAYS he carried a New TcSta-
men. at all times and read one chapter
every day. We cannot conclude that
plaintiff. Marston, or his children "ouI
have their consciences violated by the
reading Of the Bible
The court says that with the Jew II
Is different. lie denies that the New
] Testament Is lnf ~ 9 W. NV ~
denies our Saviour. lie does not deny
most 81 the moral teachings Of Jesus
Christ, but he denies His divinity and
His resurrection" Therefore il j. said
a Bible. as containing the Old Tesla
ment and the New Testament, - not
his Bible, and Il IL a denial Of ms re-
ligious rights that his child should be
taught that II is.
Plaintiff was entitled to affirmative
INSTRUCTIONS MS to the plea Of con-
tributory negligence where sh" WAS
driving a COW along Il country road
and was approached by defendant In
his automobile from the rear steadily
until he struck her, he knowing ihdt
she did not hear his horn.-pozier y
Woods, Ala, 81 SO. 2s3.
That a person sentenced 10 death
for arson Was undergoing Life ImprIsou-
mcnt for murder under prior coAvlc-
ton did not prevent execution OF death
sentencc-State VS.. Rodgers, s. C. 81
$. T.. 30i,
Whether a cat is a domestic animal
WAS passed ON by the supreme tour'
of Maine in Thurston vs.. Garter. which
was an action for the recovery o: dam
ages for the killing Of the plpintin' :
foNhcund. The defendant In iustiticd'
ton claimed that he killed tn" plain
tins dog while il was oa defendants
premises chasing and worrying the de
,.,I,,,ty ,.t ha p.1taI an "a NtlflIf1