| Show WHAT COURTS DECIDE Rights of Betrothed in the Blatter I of Property ADVERSE TRANSFER NOT GOOD Relationship Should Bo Close and Confidential Widower Contemplating Contemplat-ing Second IiTnrriagp Cannot Dis poso of Land Without Future Wifes Knowledge City Council Contract With Street Railway Com I pany as to Taxation Held Good When Physicians May Not Testify A conveyance by a widower who has entered Into u contract of marriage which subsequently takes place OL a L portion of his land to his sons by a former marrlapcwithout consideration other than love and affection and without the knowledge or consent of his contemplated wife is held by the Supreme court of Ohio In the case lorI lor-I Ward vs Ward 57 N 13 Rep 1094 to be a fraud on her marl bit rights and she at his death Is entitled to her dower therein The reason for the decision Is I that during the betrothal the parties stand In so I close and confidential a relationship as to give rise to a duty to exercise the utmost good faith The Intended wife I has the same Interest as the husband in the family establishment and In all tat concerns its future support and maintenance Such an undisclosed conveyance Is 1 therefore Inconsistent with the good falui and honesty which the relations oC the parties demand I S In an action for damages for false I Imprisonment I and malicious prose ll S lion brought in Richmond Va against a railroad company where the evidence showed that the company employed a detective agency to Investigate i I Inves-tigate certain larcenies made from its I cars and to find out Iho culprit and that the agency arrested and imprisoned impris-oned a man who was afterward acquitted ac-quitted it was held that the detective agency was not the agent of the railroad rail-road company and that therefore the company was not liable S S a I A wife on leaving her home for alleged al-leged misconduct on the part of her hUBband cannot take from the homestead home-stead household goods without his consent holds the Supreme court of Michigan In the case of Johnson vs Johnson h Dot L N 603 0 S o An agreement or contract entered Into by a municipality with a street railway company by ordinance whereby where-by the company was granted a special rate for city taxation was held to be valid by the Supreme court of Michigan Michi-gan In the case of Detroit Street Railway Rail-way = company vs Common Council 7 Det L N C77 and It was further held that a contract granting Immunity Immu-nity from taxation to a stret railway company passes with an assignment oC the property oC the company of S S l Tho denial of a writ oC habeas corpus cor-pus by the Federal courts of one circuit cir-cuit is held hy the United states Circuit Cir-cuit court in the case ot Carter vs IttcCIaughry 107 Fed Ip 614 not to render the questions determined Ies judicata so as to preclude their re oxamlnatlon by the courts of another circuit In subsequent habeas corpus proceedings Instituted therein by the same petitioner I a o Notes signed by both members oC a partncrs Rrp which do not purport to be obligations of the firm although given by the partners for money borrowed bor-rowed and put Into the firm as capital are held by Judge Purnell oC the United States District court North Carolina In the case of Strause vs Hooper 105 Fed Rep 590 not provable prov-able against the estate of the partnership partner-ship in bankruptcy S a O Creditors of an Infant In Illinois vfliosf debts the infant Is entitled to repudiate at majority cannot have him I adjudged an Involuntary bankrupt since they arc not creditors in the I tense of the bankruptcy act of 1898 holds Judge Kohlsaat of the United States District court In re Eldemiller I 103 Fed Rep 595 I > n f Where a wifo bought real estate with the proceeds of a store originally ac quired by gift from her husbands I mother taking title to the land in her i own name the Supreme court of Iowa In the case of Marshall Field Co vs ItfcFarlane 84 N W Rep 1030 holds I that a Judgment creditor of the hus hand could not subject the land to the I payment of his debt S o A verdict for 600 damages recov ered by a minor son from a saloon 1 keeper for Injury to his meads of sup port in consequence of the habitual Intoxication of his father caused by i the illegal sales of intoxicating liquors to him by the saloonkeeper was af I firmed by the Supreme court of Iowa I In the C 800C Shu11 vs Arle Si N W I Rep 101 U U b I In an action t against an adminlstra I for iby ° physician to recover for e2Slonal pro I fessional services rendered during the Jat I Civil limioC a nelson the Court of Appeals of Texas CO S W Rep not 63 hold that the Ithysielan l could testify that he treated and scribed i for decedent since pre thin was a transaction with The deceased within i the meaning of the statute which Ides pro that in actions against admin I istmtQrs neither party shall tstlfy is to an trnn any transactions nctlons with the deceased d unless called by the opposite party I I > If U The fact that a Judge before I whom 0 suit Is I ar8Ur flight Is on Intimate terms of friendship with the plaintiff and the plaintiffs father would not da qualify the Judge from trying the case holds the Court of Appeals oC Iicntucky In the case of Sparks Colson GOS W Rep WO The Court court fald that to hold that such a state oC fact would disqualify the > JudGe from acting in a suit wherein some of S parties were remotely or directly in terested would be ridiculous U in an action for personal injuries the defendant has no right to demand that the court examine the plaintiff to de tcrmlno a dispute between I opposinG doctors holds the New York Supreme court Appellate division in the case I of French vs Brooklyn Heights > Rail I way company GS N Y Sunn 4n I > USA US-A drayman who delivered a barrel of whisky to the wrong person was held by the Supreme 1 court Appellate dl vision In J the case on Sonn Vs Smith r v v CS N Y supp 217 to be l > liable for the value of same since I every bailee I is bound at his peril to know that the person to whom he delivers prop erty is the proper person j S S SIn S-In directing the jury as to the man ner of determining the credibility of witnesses the Appellate court of In I I diana In the case of Wubash Railway Company vs Biddle 59 N E Ren 2KB holds that It Is error to tell the jury that t they should consider cer tain facts instead of instructing them L I that they might consider these facts S SS Where statements made about a person per-son arc ambiguous and may impute the crime of arson the Court of Appeals of New York in tho case of Warner vs Southall W N P Rep 2C9 holds that It IB for the Jury to say whether they were ao Intended and understood and It Is error for the court to hold ns I matter of law that they arc not actionable ac-tionable I U SAn 1 S-An abutting propertyowner who claims damages to his property by tins operation of an elevated railroad may prove them holds the Court of Appeals Ap-peals of New York In the case of Levin vs New York Elevated Railway I company 59 N E Rep 2C1V by showIng show-Ing that by reference to the general course of values in property situated In the neighborhood his property has suffered either by actual depreciation or by falling to share equally In the benefits accruing generally to the vicinity in an rppecJritIon of values a The erection of a brewery will ntf he restrained as a nuisance holds the Supreme court of Rhode Islandvln the case of OReilly vs Perkins OS All Rep C on the ground that the operation oper-ation of the brewery or the business carried on there will result In the carriage car-riage by plaintiff residence of a largely Increased quantity of merchandise mer-chandise The term month when used in a statute unless otherwise provided Is held by the Supreme court of Oklahoma Okla-homa in the case of Bcrtwcll vs llnines C3 Pac Rep 702 to mean a calendar month and not period of thirty days ora lunar month 8 s The absence of the Jury from the courtroom for a few minutes unattended un-attended by an ofllcer was held by the Supreme court oC Mississippi In the case of Carter vs State 29 So Rep US to subject the jury to a suspicion of improper influence and is an Irregularity i which vitiates the verdict a S o In an action against a street car company Tor injuries caused by a snowbank thrown on a crossing of the company the Supreme Court of Appeals Ap-peals i of Virginia In the case of Newport New-port News etc Railway etc Company Com-pany vs Bradford 37 S E 3 Rep SOn holds that although the company has the right to remove the snow from Its tracks to another part of the suvct In h doing so it would not have l the right to bank up the snow so as to make It dangerous to use or cross the street unless the work of cleaning the track necessarily obstructs passage and t hen the company is bound to do all I that ordinary care requires in removing remov-ing the obstruction L l U I 0 S Omissions and Inaccuracies in and from a bankrupts schedule not made knowingly and fraudulently = arc not grounds for rctuning him a discharge holds Judge Waddill of the United States District court Maryland in re Slingluff 105 Fed Rep 502 and it is also held that a bankrupt cannot be fairly charged with having knowingly and fraudulently sworn falsely in relation re-lation I to the time of his knowledge Insolvencj I so as to debar him from the right discharge because his testimony testi-mony shows him tq have entertained tho expectation of being able to continue con-tinue his business longer than was justified jus-tified by the faot i |
