CASES OVERRULED, DOUBTED OR DENIED.
BASSETT v. SALISBURY MANUFACTURING Co., 43 N. H. 569, denied.
Eastman v. Clark.
State v. Newman..
Mather v. Chapman.
Fay v. Parker.......
Fay v. Parker
Hale v. Foerett........ 115, 121
v. Silverstone....
RROMLEY V. ELLIOT, 38 N. H. 287, questioned.
COMMONWEALTH v. HOLDER, 9 Gray, 7, denied.
EMANS 7. TURNBULL, 2 Johns. 313, explained.
HOPKINS 7. WALPOLE, 10 N. H. 130, denied.
LINSLEY 0. BUSHNELL, 15 Conn. 225, denied.
PETTY v. TOOKER, 21 N. Y. 267, considered.
POWELL v. BAGG, 8 Gray, 441, questioned. Connor v. Sullivan..
QUIMBY v. MORRILL, 47 Me. 470, overruled in part.
ROBERTSON v. BULLIONS, 11 N. Y. 243, considered.
RYLANDS 7. FLETCHER, L. R., 3 H. L. 330, questioned. Brown v. Collins.. 381
SAWYER v. VAUGHAN, 25 Me. 336, explained. Small v. Clewley.
STATE v. BARTLETT, 11 Vt. 650, denied. State v. Newman..
STATE v. ELLIS, 3 Conn. 185, denied.
STATE v. HAMILTON, 11 Ohio, denied.
12
Small v. Clewley.... 412
Hale v. Everett.. 115, 121
SWEET ». CUTT, 50 N. H. 439; 9 Am. Rep. 276, denied. Chase v. Silver-
WHIPPLE v. WALPOLE, 10 N. H. 130, denied. Fay v. Parker.
Negligence of bank in paying.] See BANK, 576.
When indorser liable for money paid.] See ACTION, 518.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
![[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]](https://books.google.co.za/books/content?id=XxA8AAAAIAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA799&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=editions:HARVARD32044098885452&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1n5j245hCSvos-rfMxQIrtrSJC7Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=837,507,43,209)
1. Exemption from taxation by vote of town.] A statute authorized towns in
which manufacturing establishments should be located to exempt the
same from taxation for a term of years. Held, that the statute was un-
constitutional because (1) it in effect authorized unequal taxation; and
(2) the legislature could not delegate to a municipal corporation its power
of determining upon what property taxes shall or shall not be imposed.
Brewer Brick Company v. Inhabitants of Brewer (Me.), 395.
-.] The remission of a tax by a vote of a town is in substance and effect
the same as a gift, and a statute authorizing it is void. Ib.
8. Regulation of railway freights.] A State legislature has power to prohibit
unjust discrimination in railway freights. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co. v.
People ex rel. Koerner (Ill.), 599.
-] An act prohibiting not only unjust discrimination, but all dis-
crimination in railway freights, held in violation of the State constitution
which provided for the passage of laws to prevent unjust discrimination.
Ib.
-.] It seems that the discrimination is unjust where less rates for
greater distances are charged only on the ground of the existence of com
peting lines. Ib.
6. Draining acts.] The right of the State to condemn land for drains rests on
the same foundation as its right in cases of public roads, mills, railroads.
school-houses, etc. The acts granting such powers are not unconstitu
tional. Norfleet v. Cromwell (N. C.), 787.
Ha post facto law.] See STATUTE, 565.
1. What constitutes.] Contempts are of two kinds, direct and constructive; a
direct contempt is one offered in the presence of the court while sitting
judicially; a constructive contempt is one which tends to obstruct and em-
barrass a court, though the act be not done in its presence. People v. Wil
son (Ill.), 528.
-] The publication of an article by any person, even ir a newspaper
at a place remote from that where the court is being held, concerning a
case pending in court, and which has a tendency either to prejudice the
public, to corrupt the administration of justice, to influence the court by a
threat of “popular clamor," or to reflect on the tribunal, the parties, the
jurors, the witnesses or the counsel, held a contempt of court and punish-
able as such by a process of attachment. Ib.
-] All acts which impede, embarrass or obstruct a court of justice, or
which tend to produce such effects, whether done in or out of court, are to
be considered as done in the presence of the court, and are punishable as
contempts. Ib.
4. Power of the court to punish therefor.] The power to punish contempt is
original with all courts of justice, and is determined by the principles
of the common law and is not limited by existing statutes. Ib.
5. Publications — disclaimer by publisher.] The meaning and intent of a pub-
lished article are to be determined by a fair interpretation of the lan-
guage used, and are matter of law for the court as to whether or not they
constitute contempt, and any disclaimer on the part of the publisher as to
any intentional disrespect to the court, is not a sufficient ground for dis-
charging a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue. Ib.
-.] Where a party is under a rule to show cause why an attachment
should not issue against him for contempt, a mere excuse,
without ap-
pearance, is not sufficient ground for discharging the rule, and will only
affect the question of punishment. Ib.
Limiting location of railroad depot.] Action to enforce specific performance
of a contract to locate a railroad depot upon plaintiff's land and at no
other point in the town. Held, that the contract was void as against
public policy. Marsh v. Fairbury and North-western R. R. Co. (Ill.), 564.
8. Illegal - between physicians.] A contract by a physician to take the office of
another and practice therein in the name of the other, held, void as against
public policy. Jerome v. Bigelow (Ill.), 597.
Made on Sunday.] See SUNDAY.
Between co-sureties.] See NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, 74.
1. When not liable to pay for services of director.] The law loss not imply a
promise on the part of a railroad company to pay its directors, for
services as such. Rockford, Rock Island and St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Sage
(Ill.), 587.
2. .] Directors of a railroad company agreed to allow themselves $1,000
each, for services and expenses, but no formal resolution to that effect
was adopted by the board of directors. Held, that the company was not
liable to a director for his services and expenses. Ib.
-] A corporation is not liable for services performed or expenses
incurred prior to its organization. Ib.
4. Repeal of charter.] The Port Royal Railroad Company was chartered in
1857, and its charter was renewed in 1870. The charter of 1857 prescribed
the mode by which lands might be condemned to the use of the company;
and by a general act, passed in 1868, a different mode of condemning lands
to the use of all railroad corporations was prescribed. Held, that the
company must proceed in the mode prescribed by the act of 1868.
▼. Port Royal R. R. Co. (S. C.), 729.
See FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, 632.
Against whom enforced.] Where a covenant is not to be performed on the
land, but concerns it, the covenant will be enforced against an assignee of
the covenantor with notice. Norfleet v. Cromwell (N. C.), 787.
Evidence in action for.] In an action for criminal conversation with the wife
of plaintiff, evidence to show the pecuniary circumstances of the parties
at the time of the commission of the offense is admissible. Peters v.
Lake (Ill.), 593, and note, 596.
1. Uncertainty in sentence.] Where a person was sentenced to imprisonment
in the State prison for a term of one year, to commence upon the expi-
ration of another term; and one year afterward the first judgment and sen-
tence were adjudged void; held, on habeas corpus, that the sentence either
commenced to run immediately on rendition, and had expired, or it was void
for uncertainty, and in either case, the prisoner was entitled to his dis-
charge from the State prison. Ex parte Roberts (Nev.), 1.
2. Larceny - of property stolen in and brought from another State.] If a per-
son commits larceny in one country or State and carries the goods stolen
into another country or State, and there makes any removal or asportation
of them, having in his mind the intent to steal, he may be properly indicted
for larceny of them in the latter locality. State v. Newman (Nev.), ʊ.
VOL. XVI.- 101
3. Indictable offense - proposal to receive bribe.] A proposal by a public officer
to receive a bribe is an indictable offense at common law.
People (Ill.), 569.
Burglary-breaking out variance.] A defendant cannot be convicted of
that with which he is not charged. Therefore, where the judge below,
upon the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with breaking
and entering into the house of the prosecutor and stealing therefrom,
charged the jury "that, if they believed the defendants (however they
may have got into the house) broke out of it, they were guilty:" Held
to be error, and to entitle the defendants to a new trial State v. McPher
son (N. C.), 769.
. Trial-evidence on trial of joint defendants.] In criminal trials against two
or more defendants, the judge has the right in his discretion to separate
the evidence bearing upon the case of each, and to instruct the jury, as to
what is competent against one, and incompetent against another. State
v. Collins (N. C.), 771.
6. Challenge of jurors.] It is no good cause of challenge that the juror has
formed and expressed an opinion adverse to the prisoner, such opinion
being founded on rumor, and the juror further stating that he could try
the case according to the law and evidence, uninfluenced by any opinion
he may have so formed from such rumor. Ib.
7. Beparate trials of joint indictment.] When several persons are jointly
indicted, they cannot claim separate trials as a matter of right. Such sep-
aration is a matter of discretion with the court. Ib.
8. Limiting time for argument.] In trials for capital felonies, the presiding
judge has the right to regulate, by reasonable rules and limitations, the
arguments in the cause: Hence, it is no good ground for a new trial
that the counsel of the prisoner was limited by the court, in his remarks,
to one hour and a half. Ib. and note, 775.
1. Exemplary or punitive, in actions for tort.] In a civil action for a tort which
may also be punished criminally, punitive or exemplary damages are not
recoverable. Fay v. Parker (N. H.), 270.
-] In trespass for an assault and battery, the court instructed the jury
that if they found for the plaintiff they might, in addition to the compen
satory damages, give exemplary or punitive damages. Held, error. Ib.
-.] Quære whether exemplary or punitive damages are allowable in any
civil action, lb.
Contracts payable in foreign coin. Execution.] The defendant agreed in
England, to pay the plaintiffs a commission of five per cent on the charter
of a vessel hired for thirty-three thousand three hundred dollars in hard
Spanish dollars, i. e., $1,665. Held, that the brokerage should be paid in
coin of the United States, equivalent to that sum in hard Spanish dollars,
with interest from the day it was payable; and that execution should
issue specifically for the coin. Stringer v. Coombs (Me.), 414.
6. Exemplary against corporation.] A corporation may be made to respona i
exemplary damages for the misconduct of its agent--as, for instance, a
railroad corporation, for the misconduct of a conductor in ejecting a pas
senger from the train. Palmer v. Railroad (S. C.), 750.
Accidental injury to property.] See ACTION, 372 and note, 384.
In action against carrier for assault of servant.] See CARRIER, 404.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 591
On raising grade of street.]
In action of replevin.] See REPLEVIN, 462.
1. Right to kill animals damage feasant.] A statute provided that no person
should, in any way, destroy any mink between certain dates, under a pen-
alty prescribed. The constitution declared that "all men have certain
natural, essential and inherent rights," among which was included the
right of "protecting property." In an action to recover such penalty, it
was proved that defendant shot the minks upon his own land while they
were chasing his geese. Held, a good justification without showing that
the geese were in imminent danger and could not otherwise have been
protected. Aldrich v. Wright (N. H.), 389.
-.] The law relating to the defense of person and property considered.
Ib.
-] Cases relating to the killing of animals trespassing or damage
feasant collected. Ib.
In savings bank — when it completes gift.] See GIFT, 69.
When corporation not liable to pay for services of.] See CORPORATION, 587.
When widow's claim not barred.] A husband conveyed real estate to his
wife, and both united in a conveyance to F. A creditor of the husband
procured the conveyances to be set aside as fraudulent, and obtained pos-
session himself. Held, that on the death of the husband the widow was
entitled to dower. Richardson v. Wyman (Me.), 459, and note, 468.
Bee CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 787.
If the party, from whom an asignee purchases, cannot complain of an alleged
misuser of an easement, the assignee cannot, as he stands in the shoes of
him from whom he purchased. Norfleet v. Cromwell (N. C.), 7S7.
|