The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-25

peils, held that as no admission foo WIS
-narged inc performance was not for
proht and there was no violation Of the 4.
exclusive rights.
Inc court arrives at this conclusion
rom an entire view Of the act. aying
mat: "f compliments construction is
rlRht then a church in which , copy-
righted anthem is played is liable, to-
sether with the ~organis; and every mem.
Der OF the choir"
Accused. who travelled part q, the
way on a public road. on returning
from the boundary line OF his land.
he had gone armed with a pistol
to prevent a neighbor from shooting his
held not guilty Of violating the
pistol law-Parkcr ". State, Texas. ,
IA :. ". 343.
Cas- law is fast becoming the crea,
b3ne OF the bench and bar. Onr old
INT great thinkers and profound rci-
soners, who conspicuouSly honorcd and
our Jurisprudence, nave
been succeeded very largely by an in
dusirious. painstdkiug. far searching
Of sleuths of the type of Shcr-
lock Holmes hunting some precedent in
some case. confidently assured that If
the search he long enough and fas
enough some apparently parallel cas-,
may he found to Justify even the mos.
absurd and ridiculous contention" Jus
tice Wanamaker, in State vs.. Rose. loo
Reporter, jO.-Thc Docket.
4 husband suing for loss OF his wIfe's
services may testify as to tho value of
her services as housekceper. and his
n a itr, . n ,,aNs ,NAt ha yAItrnI IAaatZ,
hired girls can be obtained at a lower
figure-Schwanenfeldt VS.. Metropolitan
81. Ry. Co. Mo. Ia :. w. l43.
Person provoking difficulty and after
ward forming intention TO kill. held
guilty only OF aggravated assault II his
mind MAS rendered incapable of cool re-
Election by blows.-Solis vs.. state, Tex.
ia :. W. 343.
Merely because conduct OF defend
horse. which while being driven
by him. backed into plaintiffs automo-
bile. was the result OF its inherent ma
ture defendant was not relieved OF
Iiahility.-Wells Fargo & co Express ".
kceler, Tex, ia :. W. oc6.
IN action for Trademarks death in
collision with defendants train. fac
that defendants conductor incorrectly
read his watch and ran his train in Nlo-
OF orders rendered defendant liza
BILE IL death proximately resulted there
from -Southern Ky. Co, vs.. Harrison,
Ala. 81 so. 5a7.
whether 1t was negligence for woman
with knowledge Of defect IN tho stree
to forget 1t when bitten by a deg held
A question fur the jury.--City Of Ll'"-
low vs.. Stetson, Ky, li5 :. W. SOC.
Tie supreme Court Of Kansas in
Rutts vs.. Atchison. Topeka " santa
Fc Railway holds that the failur" 'f
a deaf traveller ~ stop and look nom
where he could have seen the tram IN
time TO have avoided the injury was
contributory negligence procludinG re-
opycry @! damages.
The Sup-cnc Court ~ the United
states in Waugh ", Board OF Trustees
upho,ds the constitutiona,itN or a statute
forhiddiug students a. institutions SUP
nort.d i'm whole or IN part by public
funds from belonging 10 fratetnitios II
main of not being allowed "a compete"
Tor class honors, diplomas or distinc-
,ions. The Supreme court upholds the
Wow OF the supreme cpur of Missis-
sippi as TO tho right r the Legislature
10 impose disciplinary regulations on
students, and makes answer to co.iten-
tons that statute interferes WIN inc
equal protection OF the law ana the
harn,,oss pursuit Of happiness" and de-
priying a student "of property and prop
erty rights without due process of law
as follows:
Ell is very trite 70 say that the
right to pursue happiness and exercise
lights and liberty are subject in some
degree TO the limitations of the law
and the condition upon which the state
OF Mississippi offers the complainant
free instruction NJ its university, that
while a student there he renounce ar
citations with a society which thr state
considers inimical to discipline. inds no
prohibition in the Fourteenth Amend
ment."
In Johnson Va. IIot Springs Land and
Improvement Company, in the supreme
Court OF oregon (May, 1915. AS Fac,
ll37). which was an action by the ad-
ministrator Of one killed by diving and
strik !ng the bottom of n swimming poo
on account OF insufficient depth az water,
L was he'd that tie decedsnt had been
guilty Of c~ontrioutory negligence whore
il appeared that he was a good dive,
had been in tine plunge previously Shen
the watcr waS a. its usuai ana sac
depth, and thai Ia was tod upoH inquiry
that the water was onl% haif III" n'Hai
depth hut was coming in fast, AMI it
further appeared tina, Ns waited cor toe
TAM, to Nl IN. th.t ne saw 'ris1nS
standing in tho POO. and 80 vas abe
TO judge the Dept. o: the waier for
himself,
The court said: After making dre
allowance Cor me difference /, 'enTera-
mcnt, know, edge md j.dg:iCn, Of At
frrrut ner, IT is Hair tao. reasonable
minds w..ld drsw &c other !n'e.e-Ce
q! coHt.ls!oG from :ho urcAa!le-sta
facts 'ha!, shat the deceased was gI''.y
o. c~ontrioutory negligence because he
dived of the sprinrboatd With know'-
edge OF the existing conditions and .
realization Of the hazard"