The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-03-07
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

Avn Ell xOACv 40 VI xk1C LIN W.
A question OF negligence responsible
for personal injuries through the dis
charge OF an air rifle in a department
store was decided by the Appellate d.
vision. First Department. The syllabus
OF the opinion says:
I'm an action against the proprietor
OF a department store for damages for
personal injuries to plaintin-a boy IA
years OF age-through the discharge OF
an air rife by a companion, who was
IL years OF age. held that the jury was
justified in finding that the defendant
was guilty of negligence IN exposing n
rifle within convenient reach OF
customers: In handling firearms for sale
defendant was required to exercise a
high degree of care to see that they
were not lOade when placed upon a
show table.
ut appears by the evidence that the
rifle in question had been loaded prior
to the coming OF plaintiff and his COM
panions n that the defendant failed
TO keep a salesman In direct charge
and supervision to see that the rifles
were not loaded. and the jury was j,is-
tilted in finding that the defendant
mould have anticipated that boys in ex-
aiming and inspecting air rifles might
insert shot TO see how they work, or
Tor the purpose of testing them, as
they are firearms designed principally
for the use OF boys and the natural
interest and curiosity of bows might
lead to their attempt to load and to
try them"
\ definition OF 'hard labor appear re-
in the decision OF the court in People
vs. Hanrahan. 20 Mich. Gel. as follows :
Hard labor In itself is not Infamous
or degrading. Or the contrary. Il II
enrolling, and is the foundation upon
which reposes all true progress in men
tai and moral development.
An ANGELS wing would droop II long at
And God himself inactive. we're no longer
biest.
THE infamy and degradation consist
In its being involuntary"
The Court OF Appeals Of Kentucky
holds IN Illinois Central vs.. Outland
that whether a witness who has re-
NAMED I'm the court room during the
hearing OF evidence. Notwithstanding an
'Ah'i " ~ court eNfllllnR all VIII
nesses. shall be permitted to testify is
In the sourd discretion OF the court, and
unless II appears that this discretion
has been abused Il will o no interfered
with. especially where IL appears that
the Judge excluded Witnesses for each
side on this ground. thereby showing
impartlality.
Tho Cn4rt 90 Isrrn,. ..1 -.t =
New Jersey decided in Miller vs.. Public
Service Corporation Of New Jersey that
In view Of the well known fact that
In rounding a curve the rear end OF a
street car will swing beyond the track
and overlap the street TO a greater eX-
tent than the front. the motorman is
justified In presuming that an adult per-
son standing in the street near the track.
who is apparently able 10 see. hear and
move. having notice OF the approach OF
the car and of the existence OF the curve
In the track. will draw back far enough
from II TO avoid being struck by the
rear of the car as it swings around the
curve in the usual and expected manner.
and under such circumstances IL Is not
negligent operation on the part OF the
motorman To continue the progress OF
the car without warning such person OF
the possible danger OF collision with the
rear or the car, because of the swing, II
he remains in the same position"
The court also said
I'm the case under consideration the
plaintiff approached the track al a point
where she knew there was "A curve. and
she testified that she supposed the rear
or a car would wins out over the street
as IL came around the curve, and Yet she
did not move. The distance she was
standing from the front OF the car as IL
passed around the curve was not shown,
and We think the motornan had a right
to presume either that she was beyond
the swing or that II not she would move
out of its range. We must take the case
as II IL presented 10 US. and. without
proof of the exact position taken by the
plaintiff with reference to the approach
Ing car. beyond the fact that the front
passed her without Injury. we are asked
10 say that the motorman must assume
under such circumstances that she would
not act as a reasonably prudent person
and withdraw from a danger OF which
SHE was aware. or which She supposed
did not exist because OF the distance she
was from the car. but about which. Il
subsequently, appeared. she was mis-
taken. To accede 10 this request would
impose a duty upon those operating
street railways which in our opinion has
no legal basis"
\ dealer is held not guilty OF unfair
trade in Walter Baker 4 co. W. Gray,
il3 &. G. \. Az. l92 Fed. 92l. annotated
in 81 l.. r. A. ~. 81 500. because
when an article is called for which has