New Britain herald., 1916-08-25


 ment that a breach of promise to
 marry is not a claim until the question
 whether or not there was a contract 1 of marriage is finally settled is in 1 genious but not convincing It is too refined for everyday application" Labor on highways not involuntary
 servitude. Jake Butler of Colum bia
 county, Fla, was an able bodied man
 over twenty one years of age and un-
 der forty-fve. Chapter 6537, Laws of
 Florida (Acts of 1913, pp. 469, 474,
 475), requires all such resident males
 to work for six days in each year on
 roads or bridges, or in lieu thereof to l furnish a substitute or a cash pay | ment of three dollars.
 But Jake, when duly notified,
 wouldn't work, provide a substitute, 1 or pay. So he was haled into court, and sentenced to jail for thirty days.
 The state circuit and supreme courts { upheld his conviction. The higher
 courts opinion is published in 66 Southern Reporter, 150. The case was carried to the United States supreme 1 court on writ of error.
 Jake claimed that the road law inn
 posed involuntary servitude not as
 punishment for crime, contrary to the
 thirteenth amendment to the United States constitution. Moreover the enforcement of the law was a depri- walton of liberty and property without due process of law and prohibited by the fourteenth amendment.
 Justice McRcynolds delivered the opinion for the United States supreme court (Jake Butler V. J. w. Perry, 36 Supreme Court Reporter, 258), say ing, in part: "In view of ancient us age and the unanimity of judicial opinion it must be taken as settled that unless restrained by some cOnsti- tutional limitation, a state has inher- ent power to require every able bodied man within it's jurisdiction to labor for a reasonable time on public roads near his residence without direct COmpen- sation. This is a part of the duty which he owes to the public. The law of England is thus declared in Black stones Commentaries, blk. 1, p. 357: Every parish is bound of common right to keep the highroads that go through it in good and sufficient re- pair; unless by reason of the tenure of lands, or otherwise this care is consigned to some particular private person. From this burthen no man was exempt by our ancient laws, whatever other immunities he might enjoy.
 The court held that the Thirteenth amendment applied only to such invol- untary servitude was akin to Afri- can slavery, and was not intended to affect enforcement of duties owed by ciizens, such as services in the army and on the jury. There was no talk ing of property Oabor) without due f~1 Y, ment being intended to preserve such rights as had long been recognized under the common-law system 1t has never been regarded as a depriva- tion of liberty or property to require work on highways.
 Another Swindle.-A swindler, pre- tending to be the representative of a 1 Kansas firm, entered the offices of the 1 Picard Importing Co., defendant in l Wechsler V. Picard Importing Co.,. 157 New York Supplement, 803, and placed an order for considerable of merchandise, which they held up pending investigation. MT, Thereafter buying other goods from Wechsler, the plaintiff ] herein, asked him to send these goods to the offices of the defendant, to be 1 placed in and shipped with his order ]
  same being recoipted for at the de- fendant's offices by the agent Of an 1 ether firm which shared the offices l the defendant not being in at the time Later in the afternoon the swindler | returned, and under some pretext ob- 1 tained the plaintiffs goods left in de- | fendant's care, and vanished. This i suit was brought to hold defendant | lia ble as bailee for the goods carried | off. Plaintiff obtained judgment in ] the lower court. and the defendant l rresses this appeal Judge Delehanty, | in his opiniOn says, in part:
 "I am of the opinion that, upon the facts presented by the record in this case, the judgment should be reversed. The defendant never voluntarily agreed to accept the goods or for ward them and the plaintiffs are TOW attempting to thrust such an ob- ligation upon him. The defendant is sought to be held liable on the theory that he was a gratuitous bailee of the l goods in question. A bailment must | be predicatcd upon some contrac actual l relation, eXpress or implied, upon | the delivery of the goods, between the bailor and the bailee. There is evil Gence that the tenants occupying the 1 room with the Picard concern per- ] formed a number of acts for the l mutual accommodation of one an- 1 other, but do not find that they were l of such chara cter as to constitute an 1 agency for the receipt or delivery of 1 tke goods in question:
 It was also held that, assuming the hailment, no such gross negligence of defendant was shown to warrant re- covery.
 Larceny Not Within Scope of Elm p,oynlent-The case of Bruton V. Sakariason, 1855 Pacific Reporter, 725, involves the question of liability of the master for the servants larceny of sheep which he mingled with his