The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1921-05-20
WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS
NOT GIVEN MEN,
THE SUPREME COURT
Validity of 1915 Statute Up
held - ReverSes Jefferson
County Court on Case
of Fees in Dog Tax
BY FRED H. GORMLEY
Montgomery. Bureau, The Age-Herald
221-2 First National Bank Building

by FRED H. GORMLEf
Montgomery. Bureau, The Age-Herald
221-2 First National Bank Building
Montgomery, May 19.-(Special)-
validity of the act of the legislature of
1915 giving a wife a divorce from her
husband, If she has lived apart from
him for five years and has not received
any support from him in two years
was upheld by the supreme court
Thursday in the case of r. L. Barring
ton versus Mary w. Darlington, from
the Montgomery circuit court
Darlington attacked the validity or
the act on the ground that 1t favored
enc class Of citizens over another, anu
gave a woman a right in court which
was not given to a man. The supreme
court held that the legislature was
well within its discretion when IL de-
cfded that a woman could obtain IL
yorce after five years and cited numer-
Gus instances in the law where women
have rights not conferred on men, ana
where men are favored over women.
The dog law. of the 1919 session or
the Legislature came to notlce again
when the supreme court reversed the
decision of the jefferson circuit court
and rendered a new one III viz O
e. Baker Henry versus William j.
Waldrop. clerk of the Jefferson CIRCUIT
court. The supreme court held that
constable cannot be forced to go OUT
side of his beat to enforce the oog IA"
and, therefore, cannot collect Zee Ior
citations to owners of dogs VINO 40 not
reside within his beat.
Baker. n resident Of beat 81 was
cited by George w Courson' cons,aole
of beat 9; to pay the tax on MS cog
Baker did pay the tax. but refused 10
pay the fees OF the clerk ana colsea
BILE. the amount totaling $2.oo, contehu
ing that the constable of one peat nau
no right to go into another beat to en-
force the dog law. The supreme GU
decided with Baker holding that, al
though the law gives broad powers TO
constables and others in enforcing the
act. it is not contemplated by the iegls-
lature to require constable to go INTO
another heat sometimes 40 miles from
his home, to enforce the act ana tha..
therefore, any citations TO owners ~
dogs must be issued by the constaple
of the beat in which the owner resides
and the dog is kept.
The case was brought as a test anu
Baker set out the fact that severe
thousand dollars in fees under the uos
Law were involved III the C"So'
BLOOMBURGH-PIZITZ CASE
Monteomery. May 19.-(SpeciaD
Decision of the Jefferson circuit court
in granting to Mrs. William b. Bloom-
Uurgh a new trial OF her sun ioi
$50, 900 against Louis Pizitz, Blrmlng
ham merchant, was affirmed oy the
supreme court Thursday. Mrs. Bloom
burgh commended that Mr.. Pizitz hau
oscau1t and battery on
her hui a Jury rendered a judgment
for Mr.. Pizitz.
The lower court granted Mrs Bloom
burghs application for new trial on
the ground that it committed an error
when it charged the jury that the as
sault and battery must have been IN
tentionaT before there could be re-.
covery The supreme court said this
charge was plainly an error and that
the lower court was correct In its or
der granting the new trial.
TAX ASSESSMENT CASE
Montgomery. May 19.- (SpeciaD-
The only tax case involving the as
sessment of the tax adjusters since
the revenue act of 1919 became oper-
ative which has gone beyond the cir
cult court was decided against the
state on preliminary points by the
supreme court today when 1t reversed
the decision of the Jefferson circuit
court in the case of A. w. Cochran
versus the state of Alabama.
Cochrar's property was assessed at
about $4,000 by the Jefferson board Of
tax adjusters, but on appeal to the
board Of revenue it placed the assess
ment at $4,000. Cochran appealed
! from this assessment to the circuit
court and called for trial by Judge,
but the appeal was dismissed on the
ground that 1t was not taken within
the time prescribed by law. Minutes
| of the board of revenue showed the
appeal to have been taken October g.,
1920, but the records of the circuit
court showed it to have been filed
October IS, 1920. The supreme court
held that there was sufficient evidence
to show that the appeal was taken on
the date entered by the board of. rev.
erue, dismissed the order Of the cir
cult court throwing the case out and
| directed that the case be tried by
jury
! Decisions announced by the supreme
court of Alabama Thursday follow:
| Anderson, C. J.-F. r. and p M. Math-
ews VS. Bette Goodenough ct. al. appeal
from Jefferson circuit court (Bessemer
| division; affirmed.
Mcclellan, J.-James Ellis VS.. Alberta
Drake, appeal from Jefferson circuit
court; reversed and remanded.
Beatrice L. Smith VS.. Lee C. Bradley,
receiver, appeal from Jefferson circuit
court; affirmed
Matte Williams VS.. Frank Williams
appeal from Jefferson circuit court
equity, affirmed
Ada May Tucker, administrators, ct. AL
VS.. Eula r. Morris. appeal from Jefferson
circuit court (equity); affirmed.
tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad
company VS.. John w. Spicer, appeal from
Jefferson circuit court; affirmed
| Louis Pizitz vs. Mrs. William B. Bloom