The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-05-07
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

N~- $780,
-
The Court Of Appeals Of Georgia in
Tiff VS.. State has just handed down
a decision extending tho doctrine laid
down by h Supreme Court of New
Jersey IN state w. Schultz relating to
criminal assaults by Automobiles. In
the New Jersey case tho court held that
with an automobile driven along a public
street at an excessive rate Of speed that
%endangers the safety Of other persons
and actually results In such an injury"
II was also held that "the driving Of an
automobile at an excessive rate Of speed
10 a wilful act likely to infiict injury.
from which tho malice and intention to
infiict injury which are the essentials of
q criminal ASSAULT. may. II the circum-
stances so warrant. be implied"
In tho later case from Georgia the
Court Of Appeals eays that when there
Is lack Of either actual or legally Inn
putable intention 20 do a certain act there
may be an absence OF criminal re-
sponsibility and the act be attributable
10 misfortune or accident. But crimi-
Ito may 10 Suiih-
cient substitute for q deliberate inten-
ton In the commission OF crime" The
court states that II "would be for a
Jury to shy whether the act OF
one who knew he was subject TO occa-
sional sudden tack of vertigo or like
malady. which rendered him wholly un-
able TO steer an automobile or to con-
troll It's movements, In undertaking 20
drive such an automobile at a high
.a% anAnA Aloo- N ,,,IltN hIDt,.a,.
was such a disregard OF probable con-
sequences as amounted under the cir
cumstances In proof TO criminal negli-
gence as to one who was injured by the
defendants inability TO steer his ma
chine"
For this reason the Court Of Appeals
rules that Il was not error for the trial
Judge TO charge that "tf. however. you
find beyond a reasonable doubt that at
the time Of said collision and injuries
tho defendant was subject 10 frequent
attacks of vertigo or similar Affections
which when they came on necessarily
rendered him powerless to control a
moving automobile that he might at
the time be driving, and that with full
knowledge that he was subject TO such
attacks tho effect Of such attacks
defendant was Intentionally running
said automobile At a rate OF speed so
high as TO obviously make eatd ma
chine dangerous TO others travelling In
vehicles upon said highway. and while
thus running sa'd car defendant suffered
a customary attack of such maladv
which rendered him powerless 20 control
said car. whereby said collision oc-
CURED. resulting IN such injuries. the
collision would not he attributable 20
misfortune or accident. but defendant
would be guilty Of tho offence OF an a.
sault and battery"
Death by ptoma,ne poisoning tue 20
prrtaking OF tainted food through mis-
take Is held within the terms Of u
policy insuring aga!nst death by acct
dent In Johnson ~. Fidelity 4 c. Co.
l.. r. A. 1915 A. 40.
One pardoned after conviction OF crime.
Il Ia held IN Hodgeman vs. Olsen. l.. r.
A. 1916 A.. T3o. cannot ento!n the dis
tr!hut'on OF photographs and other data
for Identification. which became part
OF his record as a convict among the
pol,cc officials and penal institutions OF
the State
The Supreme court Of South Dakota
IN Keith vs. Keith holds that while a
~pos:-nupcA agreement between husband
and wife Is lawful. their relationship Is
tfllT VI ~ hAfA - 30 -
curing the utmost good faith. and any
! concealment or Misrepresentation by one
/. party as TO the value o. his or her prop
ertv will render tho contract voldahle:
thai transactions az this character VIII
he s~crutinized by the courts with great
care 10 prevcr, any unjust advantage,
TIT court said IN part:
Courts OF equity VII relieve against
any unjust advantage procured by any
-..A .-.-.- -.I a.a a.aHl..a.a a. ..ttty.
In such cases 10 establish the fraud. OPP
preston or deception than ~ TIE parties
2 had been dealing at arms length as
strangers. and where deception has been
, shown fraud ma te coustructively pre-
;. sumed thcrefrom."
In Watkins W. Cottcll In the English
Court Of Appeal I. appeared that the de
PENDANT. who carried on the business Of
! a furniture remover. agreed with thu
plaintiff To moNs his furniture. havine
: previously inspected the Same. for n GER
s tain sum. no other terms being ex
pressed. Tho goods. ware destroyed hS
fire during removal without any neglI
Gcnce on the par: Of the defendant Il
: was ndm,ttNi that the d~cfcudan. was no
I "a ommon carrier. II Was held that ~
! had not go exercised hls employment ~
to incur tho liabilities ~ n common car
rler ana lll' Ia NtS nor Ilttit lpE ltt
y loss OF the goods.
In Gr!nnan VS.. Fredericksburg 10dg'
a No. 4 In the supreme Court OF Appeal
Of Virginia II appeared that a Mtsoni'
q lodge IN lisa was given n la,f acr'
lot IN trust for tho use Of th" lodge. auC
shortly aftcrward by acts. bat withou
z a formal dedication, set Il aside "a
burial place for its deceased member
and thereafter received contributions 10
the erection Of a George Washington
r Memorial Temple" aud In l3i2 resolve
h tina. the remains Of those inferred IA IN
proposed site ~ such tempt" should in
N rcvcrcnt and proper manner h" disIn
o TERED and removed To another r1rt -
n tho lot. with tho riGlt Of relatives I
. take the remains for iutcr1ncnt else
where. on n bill Ivy parties alleging
Il that the'- ancestors hah been buried i
the cemetery to eujoin such removal n
an injury % their rights ana feelings
: appeared that tho cemetery had be-"
y neglected and had become unsiGhtly nj,
that the erection OF the temple woul'
% probably result IA Identifying and raj
n Ing for tho burial part Of the lot. II wa
held that the proposed ~rc'noval woul
not no entoincd. The court relied IN par
"a ,.pon a statute OF Virginia providing 70
and permitting the rcInova OF graves 1
n revercnt and proper manner. hut IN
W general authority OF n court OF equity
% Notwithstanding no absence Of lcgisls
q tion on the subject. to authorize emo
OF graves or cemeteries in prOper ca 60