Show CLAIM 1 OF WIFE I I I IGNORED BY COURT I i i Woman Deserted by Husband Fails to Get His Insurance MoneyAwarded to FianceeSupreme Court of California Makes Important RulingOrdinance Regulating Reg-ulating Speed of Car to Six Miles an Hour Held Void I A member of a fraternal Insurance society so-ciety took a certlilcuio of life Insurance payable to his llancce At the tlmo of IIH death ho was married but had been living separate and apart from his wlfo I for several years His fiancee hnd no knowledge Information whatever that he was a married man at tho limo she beCame be-came engaged to him On his death tho Insurance fund was claimed by his fiancee and also by his deserted wife On the hearing of tho case judgment was rendered ren-dered In favor of tho fiancee and on appeal ap-peal this Judgment was atttrmod tWitS contended on the part of the wife that the deceased being at the limo a married man tho Jlanceo could not become engaged en-gaged to marry him and therefore was not a legal fiancee and that such a relationship rela-tionship under the circumstances would be against good morals and consequently Illegal But tho court Supreme court of California held that I If any fraud or deception de-ception had been used In procuring tho Insurance In favor of the fiancee the Insurance In-surance company could havo declared the policy void and that the provision limit tug tho beneficiaries a policy to those having an Interest In tho life of the insured In-sured primarily designed to protect tho Insurance company and may therefore be waived by Itas wag clone In this easy by Its payment of the money Into court I Woodmen of the World vs Rutledge 65 Pac Rep 1105 The City Council of Watervltct N Y acting under Its charier which gives the Council power to enact ordinances to reg ulnto tho speed of street cars passed a penal ordinance limiting tho speed of street cars In the city to six miles an hour On application of tho railway company com-pany I Judge Chester of the Supreme court granted an Injunction restraining the municipal authorities from enforcing tho ordinance of the Council on tho ground that the ordinance was unreasonable and J void In limiting the speed of the cars to only six miles an hour as such speed Is a J detriment to the company and to the public pub-lic service In his opinion Judeq Chester V J i said The Interests of the public require that cars Jn public streets shall be operated ope-rated at a rata of speed that shall be low enough not lo be dangerous lo tho safety of tho person or property of those using I the streets and the convenience of the I I public requires them to bo operated at as high a rate of speed as Is commensurate I with reasonable safety It Is clearly clear-ly shown thnt cars can be and have been I operated with reasonable safety at twelve I 1 miles per hour Whore an owner of property which was destroyed fire had taken out a number of Insurnn policies on tho same each of which contained a mortgage clause making tho Insurance payable to a inert gagee of the property md the full value of thQ property ° destroyed was paid to such mortgages by some of time insurance companies com-panies the Supreme court of Georgia in the case of Norwich Union Fire Insurance society vs Wellhbusc held that such Owner thereafter had no right of action against another Insurance company even 1C before such settlement of tho loss It I I may have been liable to him upon + Ils policy < I II I One who though acting In entire good faith Illegally disposes of property be longing l to another is held by the Supremo I court of Georgia in tho case of Clarke I vs Whcatley 20 i S E Rep 437 to be liable to account therefor and If under I any circumstances ho has an equitable right to demand that his unauthorized disposition I dis-position of such property be ratlrtcd ho must at least mako a proper tender ot the proceeds arising thcJl from and assume the burden showing that tho value of the property was not greater than tho amount realize therefor The fact that a promissory hole sued on is not properly stamped as required by tho revenue iiclf Is I not sulficlcnt to authorize tho rejection such a note its evidence holds tho Supremo court of Ala bama In the case of Ilooppr vs Whltn ker CO So Rep 355 unless It be shown that the omission to stamp It was with tho Intent to ovado payment of revenue I Under the laws of Vermont Judge Wheolor of the United Stales District I court In ro Mooney 109 Fed Rep CQ1 holds that a wifes lands held by her under a deed without limitation occupied by her family and farmed by her husband hus-band are not her sepurito property and their products are assets of the husbands estate In bankruptcy In an action for breach of promise whcro the contract of marriage In proven the Supremo court California In the case of Llebrnndt vs Sorg Co Pas Rep 109S holds that evidence that the plaintiff told others of the contract Is admissible not as tending to prove the agreement lo I marry but for the purpose showing the humiliation and damage to the plaintiff I A bankrupts liability for alimony whether Mt had accrued at the time of filing the petition Or accrued thereafter Is not affected by his cllbchiirco In bankruptcy bank-ruptcy Young vs Young 71 N Y Supp 314 Upon the trial of one charged with the offense of using profane language without I provocation In the presence of a female the Supremo court of Georgia In tho case of Ray vs State 39 S E Hep tOM holds I that the accused may defend by showing that ho waa provoked to use the language lan-guage by one other than such f male the sufficiency of tho provocation being a i question for the Jury under all the circumstances cir-cumstances of the case i i While a notary public who Is a stock i holder and officer of a corporation has such Interest in the conveyance as dlfl l I I qualifies him from conducting the separate sepa-rate examination and acknowledgment of I tho wife of a grantor to the mortgage of r a homestead to said corporation tho Su prcmo court of Alabama In the case of National Building and Loan association vs Cunningham 30 So Rep 35 holds t that such Incompetency tho notary I public before whom tho acknowledgment was made and who ccrtllleiL It renders I tho Instrument invalid only upon direct i attack and not when collaterally assailed and In an nctlon of ejectment by tho I I mortgagor against the corporation to which tho mortgage was made and who purchascd clllm the at the foreclosure 831c anti property sued tor under uoh mortgage ru Imnlldlt o tho mortgage I grass oC the noise not 1w shown b extrinsic Incapacity can by extrinsic purof proof and Qr the mort otherwise mortgago Is otherwise ails tho action plaintiff Is nOL entitled to recover in such A person guaranteed tho I payment of all goods purchased by a certain firm for A certain amount The following month the lh I firm involved without notice to lhe guar nntnr or to the party whose claim wna parnntecd and thereafter the cohtmij lug partner purcluianl goods In the or the former firm Judge Thomas of name tho I nltod States District court New York In rnClnqU ° < lf ° Fed Rep U5 held that the firm wns not dissolved aa regards tho vendor and the guarantor cannot tlrq C 1 liability on his contract by pleading escape se cret understanding between the former partners by which one partner continued In the business I |