Show i l LYs DONTHE LAY J Idaho Supreme Court Decides i De-cides Question i i I I I OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE j 111 I How Long Can Father Control 1 t j Proceeds of Childs Labor r 1 j il J J Iji I Ii Court Holds That Minor Cannot R cover Wages When Father Has r i J I Promised His Services L 1 I gk TRIBUNE SPECIAL r Boise Ida Dec ISTho Supreme court In an opinion handed down today rc I i versed the Judgment of tho District couro for Latah county In the CIKO of Frank L I I Tticker a minor I y his guardian ElIas 1 I Tucker father against Melvin Lovcli i 1 t appellant i In this cast the court lays down the law Jon t J-on the very interesting question of tho i length to which n father can KO in controlling con-trolling the proceeds of labor of a minor child I I Young Tucker worked for Lovell who rofuscd to pay him claiming tho cider Tucker was In his debt and that he had j premised the services of tho non and 3 loam In payment of thi balance thereof YIn Y-In reverting tho Judgment the Supremo court In this opinion which Is by Chief Justice Qunrles concurred In by Justice I 7 Sullivan lays down the rule that tho boy I could not have been entitled to pny for his services under the circumstances un I I loss notice to that effect was published to i 2 the world by the father l I t J I |