Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ONE

of practical men as to a fact merely because they As stated, Morganfield is a desperate man, and he give a bad theoretical reason for it and I am not has found means to employ good legal talent to reable to furnish the right one. I have been told that sort to every technicality of the law to avoid his some years ago the pilots in the English Channel extradition to the authorties of Virginia. There uniformly asserted that there was a current setting have been a number of trials, and the object of his toward the French shore, and, to allow for that counsel is clearly that of delay, and we see now the supposed current, they always steered to the north extraordinary spectacle of a case, where the identity of the course wbich by the chart and compass they of the prisoner is clearly established, taken from should have held. It was ascertained that there court to court, and thus defeating the ends of juswas no such current, and some ships were lost be- | tice. The counsel's last effort was an application cause their commanders disregarded the rule of the for a writ of habeas corpus before Judge M. F. Wilpilots because their reason for it was wrong. On son, of the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton county, further investigation it was found that the deflexion

one of the most eminent jurists versed in criminal of an unadjusted compass from the action of the law, and he held that Morganfield should be suriron in most ships was such as make it right when

rendered to the agent of the State of Virginia. An the ship's head lay either cast or west to steer to appeal has been taken to the next higher court, but the north of the course by chart as indicated by the ultimate result is definitely settled, and that is that com pass.

It The pilots were quite right in the

that Morgan field will be sent back to Virginia. fact which they had observed, though quite wrong diction has been raised, because it demonstrates

is in one sense gratifying that this question of jurisin their reason." The good old man who was examined by Sir Thomas More thought that the build that, at the present time, train robbers center their ing of Tenterden Steeple was the cause of the operations at or near State lines, so that they can

escape to the adjoining State, and thus avoid imGoodwin Sands, but the Goodwin Sands are a fact

mediate arrest or conflict with the officers of the all the same.-Law Times.

State in which they operated. In this way many of THE LAW OF EXTRADITION.

the robbers have escaped punishment, while await

ing the slow routine of requisition papers or other NE of the best arguments in favor of some

steps which are the necessary preliminaries to an national legislation to bring the crime of train

arrest. robbing and wrecking within the Federal jurisdiction was the trial for the extradition of Morgan

The logic of these proceedings is that it is imfield, the leader of the gang that robbed the Adams perative to enact, as speedily as possible, the legis

lation now pending before Congress, making the Express in Virginia--"within the shadow of the Capitol”-only a few months ago, which has just offense, to be tried in the United States courts, and

crimes of train robbing and wrecking a national taken place in Cincinnati courts.

calling into service United States marshals, the Morganfield is, from personal appearances, a very

secret service, and, if necessary, the United States desperate character. Although he has been identified by a link of indisputable evidence as one of that natural fear which all criminals have of the

army-and above all of having the effect of inspiring the men who held up the train, he maintained a

stern dispensation of justice in the Federal courts. stolid indifference, and even laughed at some of the

The legal fight regarding the extradition of Morevidence brought forth, as though it would have ganfield was stirring, and has attracted so much in. no effect. It was rather a dramatic scene when he terest and the points brought forth by the defense was brought into Judge M. F. Wilson's court. As

were of such a nature as to justify publication in will be recalled, he was captured through an acci- full of the decision ordering the surrender of the dent. Smart criminal that he is, he had an idea prisoner to the State of Virginia. that the authorities would look for him upon the The first case that I will decide will be the one arrival of the trains at the depots, so he jumped resting on the arrest of the prisoner on a warrant of from the car when a short distance from the city, extradition. In that case the only points for the but, being early dawn, he made a miscalculation, court to determine are as to the regularity of the and, instead of landing on level ground, found him- papers and the identity of the prisoner; i. e., is the self dumped into a ditch twenty feet below the prisoner the person who is indicted in Stafford track. When found next day with a broken leg, county, the one whom the State of Virginia demands the fact that several thousand dollars were on his

as a fugitive from justice? The State of Ohio reperson aroused suspicion. Further inquiry de- quires that the demand shall be accompanied by an veloped that he was the train robber.

He was affidavit that the demand is not made for the purplaced under arrest, and for two months has, by pose of collecting money. That has been complied reason of his injured limb, been obliged to remain with in this case by the prosecuting attorney of a hospital prisoner.

Stafford county with an affidavit to that effect.

The law also requires that there shall be sworn field was being held here. Afterward a warrant of affidavits that the man is a fugitive from justice, habeas corpus was obtained, and upon a hearing of and that also bas been complied with by the prose- same, the prisoner was discharged. It is claimed cuting attorney. The law furthermore requires that by the prisoner's counsel that these facts are res the demand shall be accompanied by a copy of the judicata, and that he cannot, therefore, be rearrested, indictment, certifying to its authenticity, by the and must be discharged. governor of the demanding State. The papers in Whatever the law of res judicata might be in case the case show that the governor has certified that of hubeas corpus, it does not apply to extradition the copy of the indictment, hercto attached, is proceedings. The one question involved in those authentic. In addition to that, a copy of the in- proceedings is as to the regularity of the indictment dictment is certified to by the judge and clerk of and the identity of the prisoner. If the prisoner is the court of Stafford county in accordance with the once discharged because the demand is irregular, act of Congress.

that does not prevent the demand being made in One objection maile to the indictment is that it , proper form; and if once discharged because his does not appear that it was returned by the grand identity is not sufficiently established, that does not jury, but the certificate of the clerk of the County prevent his rearrest and the introduction of further Court recites that the copy to which he refers is proof as to his identity. that of an indictment returned by the grand jury. That a plea of res juilicata does not apply to proAnother objection made is that the indictment does ceedings of this kind is decided in 22 Florida, page not appear to be certified to as a true bill by the 36. This same point was also virtually decided in foreman of the grand jury. On the back of the the case of John Larney, otherwise called “ Mollie copy the words “A true bill,” signed by the fore- Matches," who was arrested as a fugitive from jusman, will be found; but, in addition to that, the tice from the State of Illinois, and the courts of prosecuting attorney of Stafford county has called Ohio discharged the prisoner on the ground that my attention to the case 21 Grattan (Price v. The the extradition warrant issued by the governor of Commonwealtlı) page 846, where the Court of Ap-Ohio was invalid because it had been signed by the peals of Virginia decides that it was not necessary governor in blank. Afterward another extradition that the indictment should be signed by the fore-warrant was properly issued. On the hearing of a man of the grand jury.

writ of habeas corpus, Judge Harmon, of the SuIt is also objected that the copy does not show perior Court of Cincinnati, held that the former that the indictment was signed by the prosecuting proceedings were not a bar to the rearrest, and that attorney of Stafford county. The prosecuting at

the former discharge could not be pleaded in bar, torney has again called my attention to a case in 86

and was not in the nature of res judicata. The case Virginia (Brown v. The Commonwealth) page 466,

was taken to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the in which the Court of Appeals decides that it was

decision of Judge Harmon was confirmed. not necessary for an indictment to be signed by the

But it is claimed that by section 5747 of the Reprosecuting attorney. The papers, therefore, are

vised Statutes of Ohio that a prisoner who was set regular and in proper form.

at liberty upon a writ shall not again be imprisoned Now as to the identity of the prisoner there can

for the same offense unless by the legal order or be no doubt. (The court here quoted at length the proceess of the court wherein he is bound by recog

vizance to appear, or other court having jurisdiction testimony in the procecdings establishing the fact of identity.)

of the case; or the offense prevents a rearrest of the As to the second case—that of habeas corpus. The prisoner. This section does not apply, however, return of the sheriff shows that he holds the prisoner in this case because the prisoner was not

, by the by virtue of an extradition warrant issued by the affidavit filed against him in the Police Court, one

who is now charged with committing any offense. governor of the State of Ohio, and a copy of which warrant is annexed to the return. This makes a

The words "committing offense " evidently intendprima facie case in favor of the lawfulness of the ing committing any offense in the State of Ohio. detention of the prisoner. To overcome this prima the prisoner will be remanded to the custody of the

The writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed, and facie case the prisoner has offered in evidence a rec

sheriff to be delivered in accordance with the ord which endeavors to show certain points which he claims res julicuta as to his arrest.

governor's warrant to the agent of the State of It appears that previous to the serving of the ex

Virginia. - Express Gazette. tradition warrant an affidavit was filed against the

A paper certified by the secretary of state, under prisoner in the Police Court of Cincinnati, charging his seal, to be a true copy of a description of routes him with being a fugitive from justice. The case of a trolley line, filed in his office, is not evidence. was continued in order that the authorities of the (State v. Board of Public Works of City of Camden States of Virginia might be notified that Morgan- | [N. J.), 30 Atl. Rep. 581.)

SATISFACTION

car.

Abstracts of Recent Decisions. years after it was said to bave been made, when

there is no written evidence that any such order ACCORD AND

RATIFICATION. was in fact made. (Tynan v. Weinhard [III.], 38 Where plaintiff agreed to a settlement of a claim N. E. Rep. 1014.) for injuries wbile in a condition of physical pain CRIMINAL LAW-HOMICIDE.-An instruction that which rendered the agreement voidable, and there former threats against defendant not only cannot was no evidence that the agreement was procured excuse defendant, if there was nothing indicating a by fraud, an acceptance of the amount of such deadly design against defendant at the time of the settlement by her attorney with her consent, at a killing, but are evidence of special spite and special time when she fully understood what she was doing, ill-will on the part of the defendant, is erroneous. is a ratification of the settlement. (Drohan v. Lake (Thompson v. United States (U. S. S. C.), 15 S. C. Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. (Mass.), 38 N. E. Rep. 1116.)

Rep. 73.) ATTACHMENT-DISSOLUTION.--Where a judgment DECEIT-SALE OF LANDS.-Neither an agreement creditor has levied upon personal property subject to sell land and cause a good title thereto to be conto the attachment of another party, he is entitled to veyed to the purchaser at a future time, nor a deed come into court and move to discharge the property without covenants, which recites the supposed from the attachment, if the writ has been improvi- source of the grantor's title, and purports to grant dently or improperly obtained. (Bank of Santa Fe and convey the land, is sufficient to support an v. Haskell County Bank [ Kans.), 38 Pac. Rep. 485.)

action against the vendor for false and fraudulent CARRIERS PASSENGERS. Where å passenger representation as to his title, where he makes the after being warned by the conductor not to do so, agreement and deed in good faith, under color and entered a car standing at the usual place at a station, claim of title, in the honest belief that the title and and open so as to receive passengers, and which was its source are good, although, in fact, they are both designed for the train on which he was about to invalid. (Union Pac Ry. Co. v. Barnes (U. S. C. leave, but which was not then coupled to said train, C. of App.), 64 Fed. Rep. 80.) he was guilty of contributory negligence as to any EXTRADITION -INDICTMENT-CONSTITUTIONALITY. injury sustained by him by reason of boarding said -The courts of a State from which a fugitive from

(Tillett v. Lynchburg & D. R. Co. (N. Car.], justice is demanded on extradition do not deny to 20 S. E. Rep. 480.)

such person any rights secured to him by the Con

stitution and laws of the United States by refusing TRAIN.—The mere fact that a train fails to stop, as

to pass on the constitutionality of the statute of the is its duty to do, or as the conductor has promised,

demanding State under which the indictment does not justify a passenger in jumping off from it against such person is sufficient. (Pearce v. State while moving, unless notified to do so by the carrier's of Texas (U. S. S. C.), 15 S. C. Rep. 116.) agent, and the attempt is not obviously dangerous . FEDERAL (Burgin v. Richmond & D. R. Co. [N. Car.], 20 S. BANKS.- Federal courts have no jurisdiction of an E. Rep. 473.)

action by a vational bank on a note, where the recCERTIORARI.—The office of the common law writ ord does not show diverse citizenship. (Danahy v. of certiorari, when issued to review the proceedings National Bank of Denison [U. S. C. C. of App.), 64 of such court, in order that the Superior Court may

Fed. Rep. 148.) determine therefore whether the inferior court acted FEDERAL OFFENSE within its jurisdictional powers, or whether its pro- OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.—A combination by railcedure was essentially regular, and in accordance road employes to prevent all the railroads of a with the requirements of law. (Jacksonville, T. & large city engaged in carrying the United States K. W. Ry. Co. v. Boy (Fla.), 16 South. Rep. 290.) mails and in interstate commerce, from carrying

CORPORATION ILLEGAL PREFERENCES. - Where freight and passengers, hauling cars, and securing an insolvent corporation executes a judgment note the services of persons other than strikers, and to to one of its stockholders for a debt due partly to induce persons to leave the service of such railroads, him and partly to two of its directors, a judgment is within Act of July 2, 1890, section 1, which proentered thereon, under which all of the corporate vides that every contract, combination in the form assets are scized, is void as to the corporation's of trust or otherwise, “ or conspiracy in restraint of other creditors, as being given to hinder and delay trade or commerce” among the States, is illegal. them. (Atwater v. American Exch. Nat. Bank of (United States v. Elliott, U. S. C. C. [Mo.), 64 Fed. Chicago [Ill.], 38 N. E. Rep. 1017.)

Rep. 27.)
COURTS ENTERING ORDER AFTER TERM.-An HIGHWAYS DEDICATION

A order of court should not be entered nunc pro tunc | railroad company built its station on lots bounded

PASSENGER

ALIGHTING

FROM

MOVING

COURTS

JURISDICTION

NATIONAL

CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT

PRESCRIPTION.

EXCESSIVE CLAIM.

by two streets, and left vacant a strip of land par- duty as existed when application for mandamus was allel to each street, to be used as an approach to the made, and will not lie to him to sign a contract in station. This strip was paved by the company. accordance with an advertisement for public work The railroad officers testified that there was no in- avd a bid therefor, where, before the application, tention to dedicate this land to the public. Held, the work was readvertised, and the same person that although such land had been so left open for

made a lower bid, under wbich he obtained a conmore than twenty years, and had been used by the

tract for the work. (United States International public as a part of the street, there was neither a

Contracting Co. v. Lamont (U. S. S. C.), 15 S. C. common law dedication nor a prescriptive title in

Rep. 97.) the public. (City of Chicago v. Chicago, R. I. &

MASTER AND SERVANT-NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER. P. Ry. Co. (I11.), 38 N. E. Rep. 768.)

-While plaintiff, a servant, was being carried to HUSBAND AND WIFE-DOWER-RELINQUISHMENT. his work on a flat car, he was thrown to the ground -An agreement by a husband with his wise to take by the car being suddenly stopped. The car coupa specified sum of money named in her will in lieu lings were worn, and the train was stopped by apof his dower interest in her lands, provided that plying the air-brakes to the engine without warnshe allow the will to stand as made, is valid as ing. Held, that plaintiff could not recover, as the against creditors of the husband whose claims were evidence did not show the car couplings to have in judgment prior to the agreement. (Huffman v. been dangerously defective or that the engineer Copeland (Ind.), 38 N. E. Rep. 861.)

acted negligently. (Cooper v. Wabash R. Co. (Ind.], INJUNCTION.- A preliminary injunction is prop- 38 N. E. Rep. 823.) erly refused when there exists no reasonable ground MECHANIC'S LIEN

In an for apprehending that the injury against which the action to enforce a mechanic's lien, evidence that a injunction is souglit will be attempted. (National statement of the claim filed with the register of Docks & N. J. Junction Connecting Ry. Co. v. deeds contained charges for hire labor at higher Pennsylvania R. Co. (N. J.], 30 Atl. Rep. 580.]

prices than plaintiff paid therefor, though to some INSURANCE - ACTION ON POLICY.- A policy of fire extent explained by plaintiff's testimony, will supinsurance which has been regularly issued, and has port a finding that plaintiff willfully and knowingly not expired, or been canceled, must, in the absence claimed more than was due. (Walls v. Ducharme of a showing to the contrary, be treated as a valid (Mass.), 38 N. E. Rep. 1114.)

The fact prima facie entitled to recover when the loss occurs

that a mortgagor is induced by fraudulent repreand the requisite steps to establish it bave been sentations to sign a mortgage without reading it taken. (Moody v. Insurance Co. [Ohio), 38 N. E.

renders it voidable merely, and therefore cannot be Rep. 1011.)

avoided in the hands of a person who in good faith LANDLORD AND TENANT-COVENANT TO REPAIR.— advances money thereon. (Dixon v. Wilmington A covenant hy a lessee to pay rent, and a covenant Saving & Trust Co. [N. Car. ), 20 S. E. Rep. 464.) by the lessor to deliver the premises in good con

PRIORITY. A trust mortgage to secure dition and repair, and to make the alterations and bonds thereafter to be issued. will stand as a serepairs required during the term by any law, are curity therefor from the date of its record, and independent covenants. (Thomson Houston Elec-will take precedence over subsequently accruing tric Co. v. Durant Land Imp. Co. (N. Y.), 39 N. E. lien claims. (Central Trust Co. of New York v. Rep. 7.)

Bartlett (N. J.), 30 Atl. Rep. 583. LIMITATION OF ACTION--ASSUMPSIT.-A warranty

NATIONAL BANKS INDEBTEDNESS. -Under Rev. in a conveyance by another of lands belonging to St. U. S. § 5202, providing that no national bank the United States is broken the instant it is inade, shall “be indebted or in any way liable to an and a right of action on it then accrues, against amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock which the statute of limitations at once commences paid in except on ” circulation, deposits, special to run. (Pevey v. Jones [Miss.], 16 South. Rep. 252.) funds, or declared dividends, a national bank is pro

hibited from contracting debts or liabilities, other Lost WILL-SUIT TO ESTABLISH.-In an action to

than those within the four classes named, except to establish a will, allegations of the execution of the the extent of its paid-up, unimpaired capital stock; will, the intestacy of the testatrix, and the destruc- but, to that extent, there is an implied authority to tion of the will after her death sufficiently show the become indebted upon any contract within the existence of the will at the death of testatrix.

scope of its powers, no matter what may be the (Jones v. Casler (Ind.], 38 N. E. Rep. 812.)

amount of its debt or liability upon demands within MANDAMUS TO OFFICER--CONTRACTS. Mandamus such four classes. (Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank will not lie to an officer to do only such ministerial '[U. S. C. C. of App.], 64 Fed. Rep. 208.)

-–FRAUD. –

ACCIDENTS

NEGLIGENCE-INJURIES TO ADJOINING OWNER. — operate with him in selling to a third person certain One who erects a chimney on his land is liable for property, with knowledge that such person was injuries to an adjoining owner by its fall, when it willing to purchase at a certain sum, induced the is not the result of inevitable accident, or wrongful owners to sell for less, so that he could make the acts of third persons. (Cork v. Blossom (Mass.], 38 difference. Held, that he could not recover from N. E. Rep. 945.)

the real estate agent his agreed proportion of the PATENTS-DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT.-An in- commissions. (Talbott v. Luckett [Md.), 30 Atl. fringer cannot escape liability for actual profits Rep. 564.) made, on the ground that his superior skill and

SALE-BREACH OF WARRANTY-DEFENSES.—Payscientific methods in conducting the business en

ment of a note given for the purchase price of abled him to reap greater profits than others would

chattels is not a bar to an action by the maker for have done by the infringement. (Lawther v. IIamil

breach of warranty on the sale, though, at the time ton, U. S. C. C. [Wis.], 64 Fed. Rep. 221.)

of payment, the maker had discovered the breach PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF

of warranty. (Gilmore v. Williams (Mass.), 38 N. AGENT.-- Where an agent, whose authority is limited E. Rep. 976.) to the taking of orders for future delivery, without

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE-PARENT AND CHILD. the knowledge of his principal receives in payment of goods sold chattels which he appropriates to his

A parol agreement between father and son for the own use, the principal is not liable for the chattels,

conveyance of land will not be specifically enforced

after the death of both of them, where the only evinor bound to deliver the goods ordered until they are paid for. (Sioux City Nursery & Seed Co. v.

dence of the agreement consists of rambling and

fragmentary conversations occurring years before Magnes (Colo.], 38 Pac. Rep. 330.)

the trial. (Shovers v. Warrick [III.], 38 N. E. RAILROAD COMPANIES

CONTRIBU

Rep. 792.) TORY NEGLIGENCE.—Where deceased was killed at

VENDOR AND VENDEE-FALSE REPRESENTATIONSa crossing where his view of the approaching train was obstructed, and the engineer did not see him till

RESCISSION.--Unfulfilled representations of the venhe was twenty feet from the crossing, and the en

dor of land as to improvements he intends to make gine sixty feet from it, held, that the question of in the neighborhood are no ground for rescinding contributory negligence was for the jury. (North the contract, since they refer only to future acts. ern Pac. R. Co. v. Austin (U. S. C. C. of App.), 64

(Day v. Fort Scott Inv. & Imp. Co. [III.], 38 N. E. Fed. Rep. 211.)

Rep. 567.)
INSTRUCTIONS.—It was proper

WILLS--VESTED REMAINDER.-An illiterate testato refuse to charge that “if plaintiff, by stop tor, by holographic will, gave his wife certain land ping at a point forty or fifty feet distant from during widowhood, and on her death directed that the crossing, and looking and listening, could it be sold, and the proceeds divided equally among have discovered the train he collided with, and did his four sons named, “or” their heirs. If his not do so," toʻfind for defendant, such instruction widow married, he directed that the land be sold, taking from the jury the question of contributory and one-half the proceeds should be hers, to be negligence. (Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. An- used for her benefit and comfort during her life, thony (Ind.), 38 N. E. Rep. 831.)

and then “revert back” to his children, and that AGENT'S

the other half of such proceeds should be equally - A notice with respect to throwing

divided among his children. The sons survived the United States mail bags off moving trains of the

testator. lleld, that the fee of such real estate

vested in the sons on testator's death. (Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company uses this language:

Gilbert (N. Y.), 38 N. E. Rep. 979.) “It must be distinctly understood, however, that this does not in any way relieve baggage masters and mail agents from using all possible precautions Not very long ago, troubles in a well-known against liability of injuring any one in throwing off Washington family were the cause of divorce promail.” Hell, that on trains carrying a mail agent ceedings. The wife got a judgment, though the the failure of baggage masters to observe how the husband had filed a strong cross-bill. In a few mail agent performed his duty did not, under this months the ex-wife was again married, this time notice, make the railroad liable to one injured by also to a Washington man. One evening, recently, a mail bag carelessly thrown by the United States at a large reception, the two met unexpectedly, and official. (Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Russ (N. J.), 30 an acquaintance, not well up in the family history, Atl. Rep. 524.)

was proceeding to introduce them. “Oh, we've REAL ESTATE

-Plaintiff met before,” said the last husband; "we're huswho had contracted with a real estate agent to co- | bands-in-law."The Barrister.

CROSSING

LIABILITY

FOR

MAIL

NEGLI

GENCE,

AGENT

COMMISSIONS.

« AnteriorContinuar »