Gribben, In re (Okla.) Municipal Corporation City Ordinance-Street Parade, R. D. 448. Groth v. Groth (Ill.) Right of Husband to Alimony, Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis (U. S. S. C.) Validity of Hale v. Hollon (Tex.) Conveyance - Expectant Inter- Hennig v. Staed (Mo.) Validity of Statute Making Debts Due for Labor Preferred Claims against Prop- Herd v. Catron (Tenn.) Will-Conditions in Restraint Hess v. Preferred Masonic Mut. Acc. Assoc. (Mich.) Hoefler v. Hoefler (N. Y.) Divorce-Alimony. Holden v. Hardy (Utah) Validity of Statute Regulating Huston v. City of Council Bluffs (Iowa) Municipal Corporations-Ice and Snow on Sidewalk-Liability, Iiwas v. Neidt (Iowa) Will-Construction-Limitation on Absolute Devise, R. D. 280. Illinois Steel Co. v. Szatenbach (Ill.) Trial-Effect on Verdict of a Person Personating a Juror, R. D. 3. Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co. (U. S. C. C. Ind.) Injunction-Contempt of Court- Contempts Classified, R. D. 50. Irwin v. Lombard University (Ohio) Negotiable In. strument - Promissory Note Sufficiency of Con- Jackson v. Commonwealth (Ky.) Jurisdictional Lo- cality of the Crime of Homicide, Ed. 359. Jefferson v. Jameson & Morse Co. (Ill.) Landlord and Tenant-Alteration of Premises-Injury to Tenant, Johnson v. State (N. J.) Criminal Law Evidence- Kent v. Chapel (Minn.) Assignment-Verdict for Tort, Kochersperger v. Executors (Ill.) Constitutionality of Kohler's Estate, In re (Wash.) Executor and Admin istrator's Liability for Money Deposited in Bank, Lafontain v. Hayhurst (Me.) Contract-Services Ren. dered in Expectation of Marriage, R. D. 241. Lancashire Ins. Co. v. Corbetts (III.) Garnishment- Larkin v. Parmelee (Conn.) Estoppel in Pais, and. Laughlin v. Solomon (Pa.) Actions against Foreign Markwell v. Pereles (Wis.) Parent and Child Cus tody of Child-Right of Father, R. D. 240. Mayor, etc. v. Erwin (N. J.) Validity of the Acts of De facto Public Officers, Ed. 89. Meadowcroft v. People (Ill.) Criminal Liability of Bankers for Receiving Deposits when Insolvent, Messer v. "The Fadettes" (Mass.) Assignability of a Middleton v. Middleton (N. J.) Constitutional Law- Miller v. State (Tex.) Witnesses-Husband and Wife- Offense Committed Prior to Marriage, R. D. 508. Milwaukee Masons' & Builders' Assn. v. Niezerowski (Wis.) Monopolies Combination in Restraint of Business-Promissory Note, R. D. 262. Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. (N. Y.) Recovery of Damages for Physical Injuries Resulting from Moore v. Jones (Tex.) A New Doctrine as to Fellow Moore, In re (U. S. D. C., Oreg.) Criminal Law-Inter- state Extradition - Warrants Procured by False nations-Rival Conventions-Agreements of Candi- Pocker v. Pocker (Pa.) Wills-Validity, R. D. 202. Reed v. West. Union Tel. Co. (Mo.) Recent Telegraph Company Litigation-Cipher Messages-Negligence Reese v. Bates (Va.) Sale-Warranty of Agent-Liabil Rhodes v. Missouri Savings and Loan Co. (Ill.) Power of Building Association to Issue "Paid up Stock," Robertson v. United States (U. S. 8. C.) Enforcement of Maritime Contracts, Ed. 133. Rogers v. Raines (Ky.) Contracts-Conflict of Laws- Comity Between States-Credits on Building and Rowe v. United States (U. S. S. C.) Law of Self-defense, St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews (U. S. S. C.) Statutory Liability of Railroad Companies for Fires Caused by Locomotive, Ed. 239. San Antonio St. Ry. Co. v. State (Tex.) Mandamus- Street Railway-Failure to Operate Lines, R. D. Sanford v. Poe (U. S. S. C.) Validity of State Taxation of Property of Express Companies, Ed. 279. Sattley, In re (Mo.) Criminal Liability of Bankers for Receiving Deposits when Insolvent, Ed. 153. Scheffer v. Willoughby (Ill.) Negligence-Restaurant Keeper-Burden of Proof, R. D. 50. Scott v. Donald (U. S. S. C.) Validity of South Carolina Liquor Dispensary Law, Ed. 173. Sentell v. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (U. S. S. C.) Animals -Property in Dogs-Police Power, R. D. 506. Sheehan v. St. Paul & D. Ry. Co. (U. S. C. C. of App., Siegel v. Eaton & Prince Co. (Ill.) Contracts-Con- struction Entirety-Performance, ann. case, 367. Smith v. Grant (Colo.) Admission in Evidence of the Smith v. Sherwood (Wis.) Absence of Trial Judge From Court Room During the Argument to the Smith v. Smith (Tenn.) Husband and Wife-Alienation of Husband's Affection-Disabilities of Coverture, South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (Eng.) Rights of the Finder of Lost Chattels, Ed. 133. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Beatty State v. Bates (Utah) Validity of Statute Providing for State v. Blake (Conn.) Will-Acceptance of Bequest by State v. Burdge (Wis.) Schools-Compulsory Vaccina. tion of Children-Power of State Board of Health, State v. Hostetter (Mo.) Office and Officers-Eligibility of Women-Clerk of Court-Elections, ann. case, State v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo.) Bicycle as Baggage of a Passenger, Ed. 465. State v. Myers (W. Va.) Constitutional Law-Sale of Public Nuisance-Prevention of Crime, ann. case, State v. Van Wye (Mo.) Criminal Law-Scandalous Publication-Freedom of the Press, R. D. 134. State v. Wood (N. J.) Torts-Joinder of Actions-Ani. Stebbins v. Morris (Mont.) Husband and Wife-Agree- Stranahan Bros. Catering Co. v. Coit (Ohio) Master and Servant-Malicious Act of Servant-Liability of Master-Injury to Third Persons-Damages, ann. Taylor v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (Tex.) Life Insurance- Taylor v. Wabash R. R. Co. (Mo.) Carriers of Passen- gers-Failure to Heat Cars-Damages, R. D. 154. The Bath Gas Light Co. v. Claffy (N. Y.) Corporation- Enforcement of Ultra Vires Contracts, R. D. 154. The Commercial Travelers' Mut. Acc. Assoc. v. Ful- ton (U. S. C. C. of App., Second Circuit) Accident Insurance-Accidental Injuries-Disease-Hazard. The Majestic (U. S. S. C.) Invalidity of Notices or Memoranda on Passenger Tickets or Bills of Lad- The Queen v. Lillyman (Eng.) Criminal Law-Rape- Complaint-Evidence, R. D. 154. Tippett v. State (Tex.) Witness-Examination-Sus- taining Credit of Impeached Witness, R. D. 261. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Selden (U. S. C. C. of App., Fourth Circuit) Accident Insurance-"Bodily In- firmities"-Apoplexy, R. D. 300. Trebilcock v. Big Missouri Mining Co. (8. Dak.) In- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn. (U. S. S. C.) Validity of the Sherman Anti-trust Law as Ap- plied to Railroad Pooling Agreements, Ed. 319. Vandercock Co. v. The State (U. S. C. C., S. Car.) Ship- ment of Liquor into State in Derogation of the Wabash R. Co. v. Jones (Ill.) Railroad Companies- Walker v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. (Mass.) Walling v. Commonwealth (Ky.) Jurisdictional Local- Wierman v. International Loan & Investment Union Williams v. Chamberlain (Ill.) Gift-Delivery, ann. (Wis.) State-Police Powers-Treatment of Habit- ual Drunkards at County Expense, R. D. 280. Witty v. Southern Pacific Co. (U. S. C. C., S. D. Cal.) Arrest-Offer of Reward-Deputy Sheriff-Estoppel, Woodall v. Streeter (Tex.) Principal and Surety-Ex- tension of Note-Consideration-Release of Surety, Yale v. Curtiss (N. Y.) Suits for Breach of Promise of Zackery v. Mobile & O. R. Co. (Miss.) Carriers of Pas- No. 1. Parol Evidence to Add a Warranty to a Written Sale. By Irving Browne, 3. No. 2. Scope of a Lis Pendens. By S. S. Mer- No. 3. The Effect of Municipal Ordinances upon Civil Liability Between Private Parties. By James L. Hopkins, 55. No. 4. Do the Benefits of Homestead Survive the No. 5. Recent Phases of Contract Law.-I. The Right of a Third Party to Sue for a Breach of Contract. By John D. Lawson, 93. No. 6. Liens of Attorneys. By Morton John No. 7. Relief in Equity for Mistakes of Law in Written Instruments. By C. A. Bucknam, 137. No. 8. The Police Power. By Lewis Hoch- No. 9. Mental Anguish in Telegraph Cases. By No. 10. Liability of Common Carriers to Pas- sengers Carried Gratuitously. By Charles No. 11. Negotiability of Guaranties. By Cyrus No. 12. Imputed Wrong as the Same Affects Railway Law. By Linton D. Landrum, 242. No. 13. Setting Aside Conveyances of Real Es- tate on Account of False and Fraudulent Rep- resentations by the Vendee or his Agent. By No. 14. Liability of a Sleeping Car Company for Loss of Effects of its Passengers. By W. No. 15. Responsibility of Insurance Company for Insured. By Flora V. Woodward Tibbets. No. 16. Wua. Constitutes a Broker. By Nathan No. 17. The Power of a Court of Equity to Au- thorize the Issue of Receiver's Certificates. No. 18. Liability for the Sale of Intoxicants. No. 19. Right of a Creditor to Sue and Attach before Expiration of the Credit. By Chapman No. 20. Answers in Insurance Suits. By S. S. No. 21. Recent Phases of Contract Law.-II. The Right of a Third Party to Sue for a Breach of Duty. By John D. Lawson, 424. No. 22. Recovery on Quantum Meruit by Serv- ant where he Abandons Service of Master. No. 23. The Court's Jurisdiction of the Res in No. 24. What Description of the Debt is Suffi- cient in a Recorded Mortgage. By Seymour Central Law Journal. ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 1, 1897. With this issue the CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL enters upon the twenty-fourth year of its existence. In addition to this reminder it might be appropriate to say something by way of retrospect of the past and assurances for the future. Whether we have rendered a real service to our patrons, we will not, in the excess of modesty, undertake to say. We point with pride, however, to the rapid and steady increase in the number of our subscribers and to the many kind words which continually come to us from them. We have aimed to make this publication a practical law newspaper in the broades sense rather than a critical review in the philosophical sense. Its uninterrupted and continued success convinces us that we have not, in this regard at least, mistaken the wants of our friends. In the future, as in the past, we shall endeavor to keep our readers advised of all the important cases decided in the courts of this country from time to time and to supply them with what are, in effect, briefs on questions of live legal interest. With this, we extend to our friends thanks for their generous support, and a cordial New Year greeting.. The case of Holden v. Hardy, 46 Pac. Rep. 756, 1ecently decided by the Supreme Court of Utah has attracted wide attention because of the universal interest of the subject involved. The constitution of Utah contains an article expressly regulating the relations between employers and laborers which reads as follows: "Sec. 6. Eight hours shall constitute a day's work on all works or undertakings carried on or aided by the State, county or municipal governments; and the legislature shall pass laws to provide for the health and safety of employees in factories, smelters and mines." The holding of the court was that a statute of that State providing that "the period of employment of workingmen in all underground mines shall be eight hours per day, except in case of emergency, where life or property is in imminent danger," and constituting it a misdemeanor to employ a person for a longer period per day in such work, is constitutional. The court besides relying upon the constitutional provision above quoted, dis cussed the question before it on general principles of constitutional law, and held that the statute was not objectionable under any provision of the federal constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, is closely in point. In that case, it appeared that "an ordinance of the city and county of San Francisco prohibited the washing and ironing of clothes in public laundries and washhouses within certain prescribed limits of the city and county from 10 o'clock at night until 6 o'clock on the morning of the following day; and one Soon Hing was fined and imprisoned for a violation of it, and he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the ordinance was void, because it discriminated between the class of laborers engaged in the laundry business and those engaged in other kinds of business; that it discriminated between laborers beyond the designated limits and those within them; that it deprived the petitioner of the right to labor, and, as a necessary consequence, of the right to acquire property, and that the board had no power to pass it. The writ was denied by the lower court, and the judgment was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, and affirmed by that court. Among other things that court said in its opinion: "The specific regulations for one kind of business, which may be necessary for the protection of the public, can never be the just ground of complaint because like restrictions are not imposed upon other business of a different kind. The discriminations which are open to objection are those where persons engaged in the same business are subject to different restrictions, or are held entitled to different privileges under the same conditions. It is only then that the discriminations can be said to impair that equal right which all can claim in the enforcement of the laws. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 730; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357.” The New York Law Journal makes the point that the Utah decision is distinguishable "from the Sunday closing laws for barber shops, which have been declared unconstitutional in several States of the Union, because there is no apparent reason from which the courts could infer that the legislatures acted legitimately in discriminating between the trade of a barber and that of other trades in general. Laws that arbitrarily discriminate in favor of or against members of a trade or calling, as such, amount substantially to class legislation. Especially is this so where, as in the barber shop law in New York, arbitrary sub-distinctions were made, allowing barbers to practice their trade on Sunday in some places, but not in others. On the other hand, laws that make special regulations for a certain trade, because of its patent peculiar circumstances or dangers, are, if reasonable, constitutional exercises of police power. See also Com. v. Hamilton Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 383." NOTES OF RECENT DECISIONS. - INJUNCTION - NUISANCE PUBLIC USES OF REMEDY.-A recent opinion by the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (State v. Patterson, 37 S. W. Rep. 478), is an interesting contribution to the discussion of the proper scope and limitations of the remedy of injunction for public benefit. It was held that where' the State, through its proper officer, seeks the jurisdiction of a court of equity to abate by injunction a public nuisance, it must show that such nuisance is an injury to the property or civil rights of the public at large, which it is its duty, as the agent of the public, to pre vent. The particular point decided was that the fact that a law against gambling is not actually observed or enforced constitutes no ground for the interposition of a court of equity to restrain the keeping of a common gambling house. It would seem that this decision is sound in principle. INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS-PREFERENCE TO OFFICERS ASSETS AS A TRUST FUND.-A new case on the controverted question as to how far assets of a corporation constitute a trust fund for the benefit of creditors, is Childs v. N. P. Carlstein Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 86 decided by the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The court reviews all the authorities on the subject, and comes to the conclusion that the assets of a corporation do not constitute a trust fund for the benefit of its creditors in such a sense that any disposition thereof to secure an antecedent indebtedness in favor of one or more of its officers, though made while the corporation is still a going concern, and its officers still have hopes of continuing business, may be set aside at the instance of creditors, and that the fact that one is president of a corporation is not ground for depriving him of the right to enforce securities which he holds for the payment of his just claims against the company. CRIMINAL LAW-EVIDENCE-PHYSICAL EXHIBITS AND EXPERIMENTS TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY. In Johnson v. State, 35 Atl. Rep. 787, it was held, among other points, that impressions of footprints made in a box of sand with a boot worn by the prisoner may be exhibited by the State to witnesses who had seen certain footprints near the body of a murdered person, for the purpose of comparison. The court considered that it was plainly competent for the witnesses who had seen the footprints to describe them to the jury-their dimensions, their shape, their peculiarities. For the purpose of such description, a photograph or a drawing could have been referred to. In the present instance the witnesses made a comparison of the real footprints as seen by them with the artificial prints made by the boots, which latter were undoubtedly genuine. The question was one of identity, and in such cases all that a witness can do is to express his opinion, and such expression of opinion, in this class of cases, is plainly admissible. The subject has been under judicial consideration on various occasions, and the rule as stated has been very generally applied. Thus, in Com. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412, on a trial for murder, the testimony of persons not experts was held admissible to the effect that hairs on a club appeared to the naked eye to be human hairs, and resembled the hair of the deceased. Many decisions can be found to the same effect. See People v. Gardner, 144 N. Y. 119, where the New York Court of Appeals held that no error was committed by the trial judge in directing that the defendant be forcibly compelled to stand up for the purpose of identification by a witness for the prosecu‣ tion. |