The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-04-16
NOVEL POINTS OF THE Law.

from an order sustaiuin6 the defendants
demurrer 10 the suit. The court In lie
opinion refers to the rule speaking Of q
carriers duty ~ to personal effects re-
ta'ned in a passengers possession being
to exercise reasonable care to protect
them from ioas or injury. but saying this
rule does not extend to large sums Of
money or other property Of Exceptional
value retained by the passenger without
the knowledge OF the carrier. II declares
this statement u 10 BE- qualified BY max.
ing the carrier liable for q reasonable
amount Of personal effects. Including 4
reasonable amount Of money for
travelling and other Incidental expense.
ewelry, watches. clothing and such other
articles for personal convenience. pleas.
ure and comfort ~ are reasonably suit
able to the passengers station In life, the
dents, sickness and sojournlnGs on the
way. for which a reasonably prudent
man would provide.
There Ia no distinction as 70 street car
passengers from others. and the court In
reversing the lower court said II thinks
that there are sound rsasons for deny.
ing in the cas- ut bar appellants eontsn.
ton that n recovery In full for his loss
OF property may be predicated on the
failure Of appellee's conductor to protect
him from personal violence"
The jury have the absolute right to
ullItfx theip Verdict ip n hnp,irtAa rA~A
by adding without capital punishment"
without d~isregardlnG their oaths. though
there be no eXtenustinG circumstance
state vs.. Bacon. La. 20 SO. b72.
Damages are recoverable from tbs
owner OF LAM for the death or injury
OF u child OF tender r., even though
technically a irespAsse.. who has been
attracted 10 the place Of the accident
thereon by dangerous agency IN the
nature Of an attractive nuisa nce-Barn-
hart vs.. Chicago. NJ. 4 81. T.. Ry. Co..
Wash. lS% Pac. <<1..
Where plaintiff. who exchanged a
horse for a jack. sued to rescind he.
cause Of breach OF warranty Of the jack.
the jud Gment for plaintiff for the full
>alu. Of the horse should have provided
for the return Of the Jack on satisfaction
OF the money judg ment.--Coats vs.. hord,
al. App, 15% Pac. 4si.
In st. John vs.. 81. John. In The Si.
prene judicial cour OF Massachusetts,
&, appeared that plaintiff was forced to
leave her husband by his drunkenness.
She removed to another town. where her
father-in-iaw. defendant. followed her
and offered her 81 600 ~ return 10 her
tlshnI MI "a nd ma La n hama fnv .1sf.,Aap nj
Plaintiff accepted the offer. With the un-
d~erstandinG that, The money was 10 be
paid at once. After several months de-
fendant. who was a w!do~er. remarked
and left plaintiffs home without paying
the $1,000. Il was held that. defendant
having voluntarily! left The home pro-
vided. thereby rendering further per-
Torrance Of the contract by plaintiff inn
possible, n plaintiff having fully per-
formed on her part up to that time,
plaintiff was entitled to recover dam.
ages for breach Of contract.
The Supreme Court 81 Oregon decided
In the novel case Of state ~. Wallace
that the words unmarried female in a
seduction statute may ne held TO In
clude a divorced woman The cour,
SAID Our attention has been called TO
but one reported caae directly in point.
in which IL was held. under a statute
practically identical with ours, that the
phrase an unmarried fema!e' should he
construed to mean a woman who has
never been married. and that the sedu We.
ton Of a divorced woman 10 rot II vio-
alton Of the law. In Pratt vs. Mathew,
% Beav. Rep. 3.S. IL Is sad that the
word unmarried does not necesaa rily
mean without having been married and
that no nSed meaning can be assigned
20 u. but Il must he determined accord
ing TO the circumsta noes Of the case.
This authority has been cited with APP
proval BY many OF the courts. and indeed
In App owed in the case OF Jennings W.
Commonwealth. in which case the court
argues that since u divorced woman has
had experience in the iecher-
o,a way Of men. abe 10 immune from
their wiles and does not need the pro. |
lection Of the law. We cannot agree
with this Interpretation. however. for the
spirit OF the law does not and cannot
into consideration the wlsd and
OF those whom IL undertakes
10 protec, from wrong. We entertain
the view that law IN intended for the
"a fee harding Of the virtue Of the cha ate |
widow Just ~ much ~ for that Of the |
who has never been 4 WIFE"
4 recent decision u%pholdinG the valid. |
ity Of . statute providing for tho in. |
Of gasolene will no doubt give
general satisfaction. The decision will
be found In State W. BaPtler OH Com !
pany, 1855 y. " 1895. Tho holding II |
10 the effect that the prevention of fraud |
md imposition upon the purchas sing pub. |
lie in the sale OF n commodity. the |
Of which II not readily ascertain |
able. IL a proper object Of police r~gula.
ion az we'll ~ The protection Of public !
safety and q statute providing for the
It TO be branded Unsafe for ftiuminat-
InE purposes and requiring the word !
to no branded and the gravity |
Atencilied on svery he RE! OF package. IL .
4 proper police measure and liz not In
'ontravsntion Of the Constitution. II 10
further held that such q commodity, !
whether the subject Of Interstate COM /
Inerce or q part of the general mass of
he property Of the STATE, IL subject 10
Inspection under the police power bu, !
he charges must be reasonable In
ended for the purpose Of covering eN-
,enses Of inspection. and not for the
purpose OF revenue.
The State Of Oklahoma has q statute
,ro vidins thai 'unprofessional conduct"
authorizing the revocation OF a physi-
license shall include the obtaining.
,c amy zee on ;he assurance tha, an
disease can he permanently
.ursd. In freeman W, State board Of
" edica, Examiners. 1874 Pac. Sc, II Is
I'D .knt ,hn s.,4rIS 80 hlS .a,uA~sn''