The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-05-16
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

person not a purchaser Of the car for de-
fects resulting In injury TO such person Is
made by the United States Circuit Court
OF Appeals. Second Circuit, in Cadillac
Motor Car Co.. vs.. Il. Wells Johnson. In
which the court reverses a decision OF
the District Court In favor Of johnson. who
was plaintiff in the lower court. The court
ruled as follows:
One who manufactures Inherently dan
serous articles such as poisoDs. dynamite.
bottles OF water under gas pressure. DC.
Ia lsble in tort to third persons whom they
injure. unless he prove that he has exer-
cised reasonable cara with reference to the
article manufactured. On the other hand
ono who manufactures articles dangerous
only II effectively made or installed. in
GLIDING automobiles. Is not liable to third
persons nor parties to the contract OF sale
for injuries caused by such articles except
In case Of wilful injury or fraud. Even on
the theory Of q manufacturers liability
without privity Of contract much evidence
bearing upon tho question of defendants
exercise Of ordinary care was enormously
excluded to its prejudice"
An unusual complaint. characterized
by the fulness Of It's particulars. was the
following fled at a recent term Of the Cir
cult Court Of Arkansas:
The Plaintiff comes and complains Of
The defendant. and Tor his cause OF action
says. that on or about tho first day Of To-
vember. 1914. Defendant u~nlawfully as
saulted. beat. Bruised and cut him with
a Buoy. or Dirk Knife; first cutting him the
plaintiff In the left side. cutting to the
hollow then cutting him the said plaintiff
In the right side. cutting him to the hollow.
Cutting the end Of the lower. or last rib In
to, cutting the rim OF his abdomain Tor
belly a space Of about six inches long,
cutting the Strihlng between the liver
and lungs. and his i~ntrials. to such an OK
tent that plaintiffs intrials protruded out,
together with a portion OF the said Stirling,
mingleins and mutilatins said Stirling 10
such an extent that II became necessary
for his atteng physician to remove a po-
tIon OF said Stirling about Three inches
10 four inches square. thereby damaginp
him the said plaintiff In the sum Of five
thousand dollars
A policy insunns the owner Of an auto.
mobile against loss by theft Is held In
Valley Mercantile Company We. st. Pau
F. and NJ. Insurance Company Ne Mont
$50. les Pac. $50. L.. r. A. isiSB. 327) not
to cover q loss caused by an accident Il
q car while II is In possession Of employees
Of a shop to which II had been taken fol
repairs who had taken II from the shoT
after working hours for a Joy ride. In
tending to return II to the shop wher
they were through with II.
An ordinance imposing a license Ia,
upon the use in a business Of tradins
stamps purchased from another Is helc
not unconstitutional as to the latter IL
Sperry d II. Co. VS.. Tacoma t6s Wash. 254
IL? Pac. 1000. l.. r. A. Ioi5B. 24i,. on tn,
ground that II deprives him OF his prop
erty without due process Of law. impair
the obligation Of his contracts or operate,
In restraint OF trade.
A description OF stolen property a,
-one female animal OF the bovine species
leearly two years old. " is held Ia Jones VS.
State tG Fla. %. 80 So. s9?. annotated II
L.. r. A. iai5B. nv to alleRe with suficien
accuracy that the animal was a COW o.
heifer.
A decision that a New York tribe o
Indians which has parted with Its interes
In lands In this State is subject In the nigh
Of hunting and fishing thereon 70 the law
Of the State Ia made by the Court Of Ap
peals In reversing a ruling Of the lowe
courts in a habens corpus proceedinI
and remanding for trial three Indian
arrested In Erie county for violating I'll
law. The court said:
Even assuming that the Indians hav
the unrestricted right TO hunt and hsl
upon their own reservation without In
reference by the State. these lands ar
not within the bounds OF their reserva
ton and are in no sense Indian lands
But the question as to whether the Indian
have the unrestricted right to hunt an,
fish upon their own reservation is no
involved in his controversy and tina
question we do not decide"
A bill has been introduced in the Mis-
souri Legislature making II a misdemeano
10 swear. says Lar Notes. Each year. nc
cording to the provisions OF the bill, ever
! man must appear before the court cler
. and make afidavit as 20 the number O
: times he has used profanity during tn
, , year. and fines or taxes are TO be impose
, according TO the returns so made. Punish
ment for perjury can be inflicted for falls
, returns. II this bill is enacted into In,
+, its effect as a deterrent Of profanity wi
have TO be somewhat discounted by IN
I no inconsiderable OF "swearin
y OF" that will be one before the clerks q
court. II il not likely. however. that tn
. bill will he reported out of committee. Nc
Y that there will be any lively CONSCIOUSNESS
on the part OF the Missouri legislators a
to the futility OF attempting to legisla,
= morality into people, but rather that tn
bill obviously attacks a cherished privileg
Of the legislators themselves. Their r.
c formatory. energies will doubtless 1
directed into other and less personi
a channels. They will be apt to
/, Compound for sins they are inclined to
By damning those they have no mind 10.
A unique libel case was heard by III
Supreme Court Of Alabama In Jones VI
g X. l.. Polk Company. because an asteris
q printed before the plaintiff s name in
n city directory indicated that she wa
n coiored, although che was OF pure Cauci
a sian descent. In Affirming Judgment
behalf OF the directory company the coul
said.
The general statement that a perso
Is 'colored' imputes no crime. no miscor
l. duct. no mental or physical fault ia
which one may be Justly held %accountab
n to public opinion: and yet In the pecull
10 social conditions prevailing In this Juri
= diction, TO publish Of and concerning
white woman that she Ia colored. meanin
'. that she IN n negro. or has negro blood