The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-06-04
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

the absence of circumstances showing
the purpose for which 1t is to he used
the possession of a barrel of uhiskcy hy
a negro described as a suspicious char
actcr" will authorize a conviction under
n municipal ordinance prohibiting the
keeping of intoxicants for the purpose "
illegal sale. In this case. Lewis W.. Ftis-
gerald, the majority of the court an
swcred no." on the theory that 1t Is not
unlawful to own intoxicants, no matter
how large the quantity. and that pos
session and ownership are as consistent
with innocence as guilt. \ dissenting
opinion by Judge Broyle held that the
evidence did not warrant the opinion of
the majority that the judgment OF III"
court below convictinG the defendant FOR
the Offence 81 violating the ordinance
WAS wrong. Judge Broyle said;
The evidence shows that the defend.
ant was n negro and was employed in q
roolroom. lie was described by one ~
the states witnesses az a suspicious
/ character The u~ndisputed evidence
was that he had a barrel Of whiskcy III
his possession. This court Will take Ju-
dicial cosnizance that a barrel OF whis-
key costs considerable money. and III"
possession Of such u large and costly
quantity Of intoxicating liquor by q
negro who works in "A poolroom and who
is Il suspicious character would, in my
opinion. authorize the inference that n"
had the liquor not for his own consume
,ion hut for the purpose OF unlawfulII.
disposius Of IL. This inference. Of
course. could he rebutted hut ~ THIS
case 'hc defendant offered no evidence.
nc did not even go upon the stand 10
make n statement In the Gaze. and offcr,d
10 explanation whatever Of why he had
this large amount % whiskcy.'
Ia Tpdikc VS.. state. Q okla GRIM. l33,
,ho court answered the objection II Coun.
scl 80 one particular instruction taken
10y itself alone In tn" following manner
THE absurd consequences which woulf
result from this line 90 reasoning can
Re VOL illustrated hy quoting three pas
sages uf Scripture without reference 10
the connection in which they az" used.
IN ono rlace tho Bible sayr Judas -
CARROT went ont and hanged himself Ia
another place the Bible says. 60 thou
and do likcu Sc And In another piece"
the Rihle says: And all th" roople said
amer
\ question which is now onescire he
attention ~ persons interested ~ tue
subject. writes Edwin r koedy ~ '"S'
AVID Comment. is whether a mental DO
| Ft'1RF UfIl WI u - Il''
leve from responsibility may no. lessee
tho degree 90 tho cr mo som" of Tho
: continental countries have adopted ihl-
doctrine Of partial responsibility ard II
has earnest advocates In this country.
The supreme Court ~ Utah IN a decision
rendered .ast wear applied ms docti ne
II. charge against m" defendant was
murder In to FIRST degree ana there was
medical evidence that he was an opilep-
tic. on an appeal from a verdict a.
> guilty the iudsmCut vas '.Versrd and th'
court SAID that the jury should have
been Instructed 30 consider the medlrt
evidence in determining tho defendant
mental capacity To- d.iih~ ate ana pre-
mediate the homicide The court r'ad'
a clear %uourceneut ~ pTincinl"
, While ones ,nental condition may 40
excuse the act " may nevertheless ane'
: the degree OF guilt"
D In a will contest the law will not rec
ogn.ze that nieces and ncphews are nat
ural objects of the iesta;or's hou0tS
Barnes vs.. Phillips, Ind III y l.. il".
! One OH railroad track. where train VT
., expected. who, though awaiting the trair
, was not a pssserser, and was ysad!n
= ard made no enor, to avoid DANCE. :
no, IN tho exercise of due cate
. Youngermau IS y Y. y II & " r. +
y Co. Mass. III y T.. so1
:, \ case with interesting and novel "a,
VI is thu, or henderson " Ilc0leis
= 81. l., l5s y. ". 2i5. wherein = a'
pearet tNat plaiu''H agreed wt'n 10
husband That she should Obtain e d.vor'
y IN tho mistaken belief rN't This ~
necessary to enable nor to testify for 10
II husband In a criminal +c'.ou s." rom +
s was charged Wit cwhCZZlcw'I'