| Show WURTS RULE ON NEW WPOiNTS Correspondent in Divorce Case Cannot Sue for Libel Broker Loses M oneyAgent Cannot Attach Cash Deposited for Margins Publishers Have Right to Refuse to Sell to News Dealers for Protection of i Business ran an nclion for libel be maintained r corespondent in a divorce pro Ii a tilng for alleged libelous allegations 1 bill for divorce This question was 1entiy decided by the Supremo court i I Missouri in the case of Jones vs mownice Cl S W Rep 795 and it js held that such an action did not > allegations made in the due H > because ere of legal proceedings in a court c competent jurisdiction are absolute l privileged The court said that the rtldence in this case tended strongly to f itv that the allegations were false I Lod that the corespondent In question innocent but that however griev rts appear to her she has no ois it may remedy for the aspersion cast upon her ccordlng to the law a a Q At common law a contract which rtvm Its face appears to be legitimate tpon cannot be declared void as a wagering contract upon proof that one of the Srtles thereto knew and meant it to parties hTsitch holds the Supreme court of Misour in the case of A G Edwards Brokerage company vs Stevenson GL 8 W Hop C17 and in contract for the purchase of sticks In order that it ihall become void as a gambling contract con-tract it Is I necessity that both parties knew and understood that they were I Purchased upon margins or upon the rise and fall of the stocks In the mar I ket a S i I The ordinance of the city of New Orleans Or-leans in prohibiting private markets vitliln 3200 feet of the public markets I violates none of the provisions of the State or Federal Constitution holds the Supreme court of Louisinana in the case of City of New Orleans vs Vida 4 lat ° 3 So Rep JK3 and the court further fur-ther held that it Js within the police roor and legislative discretion of the city to require certain food commodities commodi-ties to be sold only in the public markets mar-kets and the fact that the ordinance in question may have the effect of compelling dealers in such commodities to go into the public markets or else Ito I-to go out of business does not affect I I I the validity of the ordinance 0 o On appeal from a conviction of murder i mur-der in Mississippi in the case of Oni < as vs State 20 So Rep 525 it was contended by the defendant that the 1 trial court lost control of the case by ropending the trial for thirty min nes Willie it considered another matte mat-te But the Supreme court held that iKj nev and technical objection was tftiaut merit as It was not shown itatthe defendant was in any way pre udJttd by the action of the court The court said that if the trial of a case hearing should be suspended by the Intervention of other matters to such an extent as to lessenIts importance in the mind of the jury trying the case oor lmpnlrInglhe due and orderly consideration of it by them so as thereby to work an Injustice to the ac cuEtd then such action would call for I appropriate relief 4 UndernieIaiv r Florida an officer cannot lawfully arrest person Without with-out a warrant for the bare crime of carrying concealed weapons whether he knows lot his own knowledge or Is j intormcd oinVvliy others and whether it occurs In orjout of his presence holds tlio Suprem court ofthtf State I In the case of Robertson vs State 20 So Rep 535 unless the carrying of the weapon is done In such manner or under such circumstances as In the presence of the ofllcer to A create threaten or amount to a breach oCh peace and even In the latter case the arrest would be authorized not from tho bare fact of carrying concealed weapons but because of tho threatened or actual breach of the peace accompanying accom-panying it The court further held that the carrying of arms In a quiet peaceable peace-able and ordlnary manner but concealed con-cealed on or about the person is not either a breach of thepeace or malum in BO Neither does It of Itself tend to a breach of the peace but It becomes a misdemeanor only because it Is pro hibited by statute The statute does not declare it to bo a breach of the T ace nor does the statute authorize an arrest without warrant for its in fraction S 0 Under the provision of the bankrupt tyact that the claims of creditors who I have received preferences shall not be I allowed unless such creditors shall surrender I sur-render their preferences Judge Hook of the United Stntps District court of Kansas in re Seckler JOG Fed Rep 181 holds that a creditor who has received re-ceived a partial payment while the debtor was Insolvent and within four months before the latter became bankrupt bank-rupt must surrender such payment usa us-a preference before he can prove the I balance oft his claim notwithstanding I the fact that he received it In the ordinary or-dinary course of business and without knowledge or reasonable cause to believe be-lieve the debtor was Insolvent or a preference Intended q Where a person deposits monej with a broker to cover margins on the purchase I pur-chase of grain or options on the Chicago Chica-go Board of Trade and the transactions transac-tions are In fact llctltlous the broker having no connection with the Board of Trade the Supreme court of Oregon in the case of Mellet vs Downing Cl Pnc Rep 39 ° holds that the broker has no Hen on the money deposited with him i to covr margins for advancements made or liabilities incurred on account j I of such fictitious transactions and the party IE entitled to recover It as for money had and received o U A newsdealer In New York brought suit against the American News company I com-pany and others on the ground that they had confederated to discontinue 1 his supply of papers unless he desisted from distributing with the newspapers circulars calculated to make him a competitor with the newspapers in the 1 10 1 t t n t hi UllolIllaS UL llll V ILlSI Ill 1 tuiu LJhLL Ji supply of papers should be cut off his business would be ruined Judge Gil dorsleeve of the Supreme court before whom tho case was heard held that on the facts the newsdealer did not have a cause of action that tho publishers pub-lishers had a right to refuse to sell him papers though It might result in a loss to him There is no place in any system sys-tem of jurisprudence yet devised said Judge Glldersleeve for the principal I prin-cipal that a man may be compelled to I sell his goods or his labor to one with I whom ho does not wish to deal merely because his refusal to do so may cause loss to him who wants them and what any publisher may lawfully do individually all the publishers may combine to do Collins vs American News company C9 N Y Supp 6U9 i u O If a streetcar conductor simply lays his hands on a passenger in ejecting him from the car Judge Delchanty of I the New York City court In the case of Conlln vs Metropolitan Street Railway Rail-way company 69 N Y Supp 653 holds that he is guilty of an assault for which tho passenger Is entitled to recover compensatory damages Including Includ-ing tho indignity humiliation and injured in-jured feelings caused thereby but the Judge further held that a verdict of 250 as compensation for such a technical 1 tech-nical assault was excessive The charter Great New York conferring con-ferring exclusive Jurisdiction on the Special Sessions to hear and determine allcharges of misdemeanors committed commit-ted within the city of 2sow York but I providing that the jurisdiction of the court shall be divested If tho grand Jury shall indict a person for such offense of-fense before his trial l does not takeaway take-away the right of the grand jury to Indict In-dict for a misdemeanor in the first instance in-stance holds the Supreme court Appellate I Ap-pellate division in the case of People vs McCarthy C9 N Y Supp C13 oS o Where a person had knowledge that a firm was on the verge of Insolvency the New York Supreme court Appellate Appel-late J division in the case of Crittenden v Barton C9 N Y Supp G59 holds I that the payment of his claim In full I by mortgaging the firms property to his brotherlndaw to whom immediate possession was given constitutes an unlawful preference in violation of the bankruptcy act Words charging one in a business or profosutop with ignorance or want of skill In a particular transaction are not ordinarily llbelous per se holds the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in the case of Manlro vs Hubbard Cl S W Rep 460 and where a newspaper published an article In regard to whether smallpox was In a town and said the negroes who were said to i have the smallpox had no breaking out or eruption until the attending physi I chm applied a salve to their faces and caused It lo break out the court hold that this did not constitute a libel per se of the attending physician and in order lo sustain an action there must be an averment of special damage I In a prosecution for murder in Texas Tex-as where it appeared that one of the Jurors was a first cousin of the deceased de-ceased by marriage tho juror and deceased de-ceased having maxrlcd first cousins the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas Tex-as Strlngfellow State 61 S W Rep 710 I held that I a now trial should be granted Qn this account and the court held that this lelationBhip by marriage did not cease on the death of the wife of the deceased as there were surviving children of the ratters marriage which extended the relationship relation-ship beyond the death of his wife ft a 0 Where a contract is executed In duplicate du-plicate each parly retaining a copy tho Supreme court of Alabama In the case of Whatley vs Reese 29 So Rep C06 holds that the fact that it waa signed by only one of the parties constituted con-stituted no objection to the Introduction Introduc-tion in evidence of the copy retained by the other since it was as binding i on the latter as if tho signature had I been attached Where the driver of a carriage Is ordered I or-dered by a superior to take the carriage car-riage to the barn and he starts to do I so but before reaching the barn leaves his course and goes in the opposite direction for the sole purpose of getting get-ting a drink the Supreme Judicial court of Massachusetts In the case of McCarty vs Timmins 59 N E Rep 1C3S holds that the master Is not liable lia-ble for Injuries caused by the running away of the team since he is not responsible re-sponsible for unauthorized acls of a servant when not dono in the performance per-formance of his dity I I S The contract of the shareholder of a national bank with the bank and Ito creditors regarding Its debts Is holds the United States Circuit Court of Appeals Ap-peals In the case of Dcweesa vs Smith 10G Fed Rep 138 that to an amount I not exceeding the par value of his shares of stock and not excccdlngs his equal and ratable proportion he will pay at such times and In such amounts as the Comptroller of the Currency shall demand the debts and obligations of his bank I In a suit by a wife to annul her marriage mar-riage on the ground that her husband fraudulently and falsely represented himself to bo in good health whereas he was suffering with a constitutional disease Judge Seventritl of the New York Supreme court special term held that the court possessed the inherent power to require the husband to submit sub-mit to medical or surgical examination examina-tion in order to determine the truth of the charge but that this remedy is so extraordinary and necessarily so vio lathe of the privacy of person that its application should be restrIcted ox tremo cases and then not exercised before it is apparent that no other means of proof are available r |
