COURT DECISIONS OF INTEREST.
(Full reports of any case below may be obtained for 25 cents from West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn.) Killed by the Hair of the Dog.
“THE hair of the dog that bit him.” A literal interpretation of this saying resulted in the death of one who had been slightly bitten by a dog known not to be ordinarily vicious or troublesome. In a suit for damages it was brought out that the daughter of the deceased applied a bunch of the dog’s hair to the wound and over this a piece of salt meat, with the belief that this would cure the wound. The court holds that the deceased died from the effects of the remedy, and not from the dog bite. The case is entitled Martinez v. Bernhard, 30 Southern Reporter, 901. PLAINTIFF, who had been required by decree in divorce to pay alimony, was imprisoned for contempt for a failure to comply with the decree, and endeavored to obtain his release by means of a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the imprisonment was for debt, and within the prohibition of the constitution. The supreme court of Washington holds, however, that a decree for alimony is not a debt, and cites authorities from many states in support thereof. The case is In re Cave, 66 Pacific Reporter, 425. THE supreme court of Indiana has recently held that the statute declaring that whoever sells his vote may be disfranchised, and granting a reward to any person furnishing testimony to secure a conviction of the offense, is not unconstitutional as granting an immunity to and protecting the buyer while punishing the seller. They also hold that corruption of elections has always been regarded as an infamous offense, and that disfranchisement for such an offense is not a violation of the constitution. The case is Baum v. State, and will be found reported in 61 Northeastern Reporter, 672. Debris from Burned Building.
The question whether the scattered débris of a building partially destroyed by an accidental fire remains a part of the realty was presented to the supreme court of Georgia in the case of Guernsey v. Phinizy, 39 Southeastern Reporter, 402. After the fire the land upon which the house had stood was sold, and the former owner attempted to remove the bricks and other débris which remained after the fire. The court holds against his right to do this on the ground that personalty, such as bricks and lumber, when used in building a house, becomes realty and constitutes a part of the land, and that they still remain a part of the realty after the fire, and that unless the owner had shown some intention to sever them and convert them into personalty before the sale, he was not privileged to remove them after the sale. Schools as “Charitable Institutions.”
In the interesting case of State v. Board of Control, 88 Northwestern Reporter, 533, the supreme court of Minnesota holds that under the act creating a State Board of Control, and providing for the management and control of the charitable, reformatory, and penal institutions of the State and abolishing the State Board of Charities and Corrections, it must be assumed that the phrase “charitable institutions” therein used gives to said Board of Control supervision of the finances of the State normal schools and other educational institutions. It would seem from this decision that the State University, and the public schools as well, may be looked upon as public charities. The court says that while our public schools are open to all, and are claimed as a right, not accepted as a bounty, still in the broadest sense they are charitable institutions; that the greatest institutions of learning have received with gratitude gifts, endowments, and donations to aid in the dispensation of knowledge; that the gift of knowledge is not obnoxious to the spirit of that divinest quality, charity.