Show i i IIAT COURTS DECIDE Woman Married to Her Uncle Not Entitled to Dower I Marriage Held Void Tennessee Court So Declares in Recent Opinion Death of a Man Prior to legal ZA1 f Annulment Does Not Change the Status of the 4 Plaintiff Putting Debtors Name in Blacklist is i Libelous i Kin Tennessee a man was married to fills i niece In violation of a statute pro I OJiIbillng such marriage because of ron fsangulnlty and prescribing a punish MO Mient therefor On the death of her HJuisband the widow attempted to renounce re-nounce his will and claim statutory 1 dower In his estate In Kentucky p But I 11ie Circuit court held that she was not tlie to dower and on appeal tho rJ jlCourc of Appeals alUrmcd this judgment judg-ment The contention of the Wow I aas that the marriage although pro ihiblted by statute was not absolutely I void and this being true and the mar > riage not having been adjudged void during the life of the parties it must lira treated as a valid marriage But the Court Appeals held that the nar Jvfago was void from the beginning J 1 and therefore the wife was not entitled to dower Mcllvain vs Scheibley 59 l I > W Rep 198 1 f Placing a debtors name on a black I uiat as one who does not pay his honest debts Is held in Woston vs Barnicoat Mars ID L R A Cl2 to constitute a I i 31bel for which he is entitled to dam I ngcs notwithstanding the fact that he jmay not have paid his debt where there vtcye gas a valid counter claim which Justi J cd its nonpayment aMt al Id S A party oC young men In Kentucky I trlcd ndl JlI vas out serenading until about U can dcc d r ojclock In the morning when they I I atdoubt I started 1or their homes Their way lay across a rajlroad track and severa of f11 ianrf L them sat for a while on the lies to ine reociitJYjjiTcst One of them declined to go when I hand 2 jthcy started again and he was left sit OWCII Cut tIng on the track apparently asleep eP dcarCJj train soon tame along and struck I Wilm Inflicting Injuries from I which he LS J PO WCgi died Suit was brought against the = railroad company and a judgment was here > in lelven In Its favor at the trial and was 1 nir i ae mJ I aflljmcd on appeal by the Court of Ap GGoj1 1JBEOjj7eals The court held that the deceased lIE BARIT de-ceased was a trespasser in being on thc d rraclt as he way not crossing It and I tlJit he was guilty of the grossest neg J ipcnce In sitting down on the track 111 I going to sleep Lyons admr vs R Co 59 S W Rep 507 i 9 Phc fact that a horse balks and tlcsks while on the road docs not raise Jie Inference holds the Supreme court Ncw York Appellate term in the I case of Bennett vs Wai lard 67 N Y Siipp J5f that he would kick while ii jf his stall And as In an action for Homages against the owner of a savage UR Snd vicious f horse for Injuries inflicted Jiy the hnifte It is necessary to show J knowledge < in the owner of the propen iT1 lUJea ° c the horse AJ plaintiff cannot CEo recover by simply showing that the JJ piprso kicked while on the road for It goes nor follow that the owner had But nhethBotlce of this and it cannot be pro lamte care lumed t that the horse also kicked while II I I Lint iiithe stable icDelIsi 0 CS miIi3lictL Under a recent decision of the New tYcolk Supreme court Appellate dl LlS jJHlon in the case of Smith vs Kings ton City Railway company 67 N Y cscno a fajSiipp 185 a woman who IH Injured by a faded c jhcr dress catching on the flanges of a ill gradual street car as she alights Is not guilty most ict contributory negligence In wearIng islst ei 8181 drc s RO long ar to render Il likely to reme b catc1l upon such appliances It was the ulal slzo Jlt of the conductor thc court held 12 sec that her skirts were clear from 3N COo Ar such attachment before he started the car and If he started before he crs tltncw she was thus free II was a negll = S CALl nt method of starting and he took ylhe chances mR t > < 4 j A theatrical contract In which It was iglipulated that either party might ter jinnale it by l giving of two weeks no Mcc was held by l the Supreme court of New York Appellate term in the case es 1oC Newomci vs Blaney 67 N Y 8jlIJP J70 not to oon loin plate Hint the inpnagcr should give two weeks no 1Llce of his Intention to terminate the il i I rovers a R0n of thc company but that under ItJic contract the manager could ter y candlc Ifjnjnalc > tho season whenever he chose jwjthout notice as there was no stlpu jlatlon between the parties as to when C1EUISth season was to end AnA IEr4j I pCiSon while poaching upon the jaine and fishery preserves of another I njltho Stnte of New York was negligently > lBS negli-gently but not willfully shot by the CPiwtchman and seriously Injured lie IlXED 1 lhht suit for damage against tho lIng this tfJigmployer of HIP watchman and received 41 1ivcrchhct of 15000 which was alllrmcd by the Supreme courl appellate dl ision Mngnr vy Hammond 07 N Y V lT7 rip C3 It was contended by the WlB I I tlfife ndant that the plaintiff was not L J GU 1 entitled to recover because he was a tie5pU5Sei and himself guilty of n mis 72 Main 5 lemcanor in poaching and by his act Ie was guilty of contributory negll pence But the court held that It could < l ivpt be said that the act of the plaintiff MAN jn poaching wa80110 from which he iI jiilghl reasonably expect the possibility i gfInjury lu hlmself from the defendant F Tnd that although he vas a trespasser P 41 wder e Bhould not be disbarred from his Ii QJ 1ghii of action dtOaI iUhl I < r 0 cctlJiI2J liii ew Hampshire a statute forbid rlYst n pcrfjons over 12 years old from rcrlorl1 Droridln bicycles on sidewalks was al cp ort nditlH < kcd on the ground that it conlllcted II iWiott tlelth the fourteenth amendment of the qiieAii Kvrders l lltutIon of the United States in I ocmbs that It van an unreasonable regulation ii4rrmoi ffCflthe public right to use the highways Londonf l3ut the Supiemc courl held on appeal I I biive puj lhai the statute as constitutionaL Tlu coUiluf ftJ pourt iUd that highways are used by 1 tIme I rnhl ° fJHfrieaiL llT1jC1 oC PC00 traveling on r I b11 oJ ii lofl1 ot ° n icvcles and otherwise and ne Ion i loNJthat the problem presenled to lie Leg phlR or jisluture was fo so regulate this travel lit oC OPtli4L all Ihe different modes could be owdox11 h 1Iarl1cd on in the sumo highway with tllur fLl caSOnHbIC safely and dlspalch The lIA J11 vjiurpose of the above statute the court l P rl rClcl v > as to protect persons on the 11rk OIdcwahks from being Injured by the Jt o1l iiiders of bicycles nnd Its provisions I IIi 3 OUld not be considered an unrcasonu CJc jr J tnl1 or arbitrary exercise of legislative WA L1f11JrJ10er State va Aldrich 47 Atl Rep l1ulPtgrilh 2 0 s S P1 IW who charges an appraiser with having sold out to the other side Is tf flw ibid by the Supreme court of Minno L i M5 ota In the cast of Earle vs Johnson = jjfSl I X W hop WU to be guilty oC C HI lDS tluntlr anti a verdict against him for UI JJ Ithe HUm oc jisoo Is i held not to be cx IInlnc CCsSc LGiitc 0 sc tJtJ 11 S tnkCno 0 ti 110 New York Court or Appeals in 4 the recent case Montgomery vs Buf it j lo Hallway companyc holds that a ftrcetiuIUvay company has Ihe right rI IA 111 It Is Its duty to make rules and M PEf gulntlons to Insure the safe effective lu J nil comfortable opuritlon of Its c rTE r-TE ST rate buhlncbi and whether any par oLeL tlcylar t rub IN lawful und rousonablc 1 J fJrstC lia question of law for the court that ir lIX t i rule forbidding pauscngcru to stand C C 41p on the nlalform of a car Is a reasonable cier 11 i il pne and J If a uawsontrrtr r fux < M In pnm 1 ply therewith the conductor may lawfully law-fully eject him from the car and that the fact that the passenger was suffer lug from sick headache and expected to be affected with nausea at any moment Is not an excuse for violating1 the rule against riding upon the platform The plaintiff said the court If J In the physical condition described by him upon the day In question was not obliged to travel upon the defendants car but if he chose to do so he was bound to submit to its emulations a o An innkeepers lien upon properly of a third person brought to the inn by a guest is denied in Mcilain vs Williams Wil-liams S D 1 W L Jl A CIO where the statute ffiVeS a lien on property of gucsls and provides that effects belongIng I be-longIng lo any person who departs without paying his bill may be sold to satisfy it S S 4 On a recent appeal to the Supreme court of Mississippi from a conviction I of murder one of the errors assigned was that during the closing argument I for the State the trial Judge left the courtroom and went into an adjoining room whore he remained ten minutes The Supreme court held that this did not entitle the defendant to a new trial I as It was not shown that the Judge was out of hearing or that there was any actual rellncmlshmcnt by him of the control of the court and that neither could be presumed Ermllck vs State 28 So Rep 816 S S 9 A bank cashier who was under bond for the faithful ociformancc of his duty and who discounted a note which the board of directors had ordered him not to discount Is held bv the Court of i I Appeals of Kentucky In the case of CavscII va Mercer National bank 59 S V Hep GM to have violated his bond u j a The heir of a deceased fireman cannot can-not maintain an action against the publisher pub-lisher of a newspaper holds the Supreme Su-preme court of California III the case I of llalllnan vs Hearst 62 Pac Rep ICCn to recover his part of money which WHS contributed for the relief of the families of three firemen who lost their lives in the performance of their duty and which was received and held by the newspaper In response to solicitations so-licitations for such contributions in his pHl > cr The court said in part Of course this suit Is brought upon lite I theory thai appellant has a legal pres i ent light to onethird of the fund above described and may Immediately ic I cover it of respondent in an action for money had and received but this theory Is not well founded The transaction trans-action above stated created no legal right in appellant or In any other person per-son to onethird or to any part of the money placed in the hands of the rc spondcnl There was no contract spe ciJlc enough to be the foundation of any legal right in appellant The distribution distribu-tion of the fund the persons to whom it should go the proportion Hint each should have and he kind of disposi tionof It which wduld be most bene fieialto the recipients were all matters which were In the first Instance at least to be determined by i the respondent respond-ent And It Is well for people to understand under-stand that when contributions are made In the general loose way in which those in question were made there being be-ing no definite contract whatever on the subject the contribution must mostly rely on not only the integrity but the good judgment and wise discretion dis-cretion of the person or persons to whom the money if i given1 |