Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/223

207 RECENT CASES. 207 can be brought by the wife. Plaintiff's husband, a citizen of Missouri, was killed while travelling in Kansas upon defendant railroad ; but he left no property in Kansas. Held, that plaintiff could not recover in Missouri upon the Kansas statute. Semble, that she had no possible remedy. She could not sue in either State upon the Mis- souri statute, because the accident did not occur within Missouri; there could not have been any recovery in Kansas upon the Kansas statute, because as deceased left no property in Kansas, no administrator could have been appointed there ; nor, according to the law of that State, would an administrator appointed in Missouri have been recognized in Kansas. Oates v. U. P. R. R. Co., 16 S. W. Rep. 487 (Mo.). Constitutional Law — Advisory Opinions. — Where a statute provides that a question which may be "about to rise" under an act of Parliament "may be sub- mitted" to the High Court of Justice "for decision," the jurisdiction of that court is consultative only, not. judicial. In such a case no appeal lies to the Court of Appeals. Ex parte the County of Kent et al. [1891], I Q. 13. 725 (Eng.). Constitutional Law — Australian Ballot Act — Educational Qualifi- cation. — The constitution of Tennessee provides that every male citizen of the age of 21 years .... shall be entitled to vote, and there shall be no qualifica- tion attached to the right of suffrage, except that each voter must have paid his poll-tax-. Held, that a statute providing for a system of elections whereby the names of all the candidates are printed upon one ticket, and each voter is compelled to mark a cross opposite the name of each candidate for whom he wishes to vote, is not uncon- stitutional, as requiring an education qualification. Cooks. State, 16 S. W. Rep. 471 (Tenn.). It was on the contrary assumption that a similar bill was twice vetoed in New York. Constitutional Law — Australian Ballots — Marking Ballots. — Where a statute required each voter to designate his choice by a cross mark placed in a sufficient margin at the right of the name of each candidate, and that no voter shall place any mark upon his baliot by which it maybe afterwards identified, — held (on a question put by the Legislature), that the cross mark need not be placed in the square provided for that purpose at the right of each name, but that any mark other than a cross, or placed other than to the right of the name of the candidate voted for, nullifies the ballo:. In re Vote Marks, 21 Atl. Rep. (R. I.) 962. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce. — A Maine statute (Rev. St. c. 24, § 50) requires common carriers who bring into the State persons not having a settlement therein to remove them beyond the State if they fall in distress within a year, provided that the town or city authorities requesting such removal deliver such persons at the station or on board the boat of such carrier. Held, that this is a regulation of foreign and interstate commerce, and is in violation of art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, of Constitution of United States, and is therefore, void. City of Bangor v. Smith, 22 Atl. Rep. 379 (Me.). Constitutional Law — Jurisdiction of Consul. — The Constitution of the United States, securing to citizens the right of trial by jury and requiring an indict- ment by a grand jury, does not give a citizen or a temporary subject the right to claim the guaranty when tried before a consul or tribunal, in accordance with a treaty for offences committed in a foreign country; nor does the fact that the offence is com- mitted on an American vessel give the offender the right to invoke the guaranty on the ground that the deck of the vessel is territory of the United States. Ross v. Mdntyre, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 897. Constitutional Law — Legislative Acts — Delegation of Power. — Un- der Pol. Code, Cal., §§ 2568, 2569, subd. 6, the board of harbor commissioners of the port of Eureka are empowered to make rules and regulations for the protec- tion of navigation in Humboldt Bay, and to impose penalties up to a certain amount. Held, that the clause giving them the power to impose penalties is unconstitutional ; since the Legislature cannot delegate such power to any other body. Board of Harbor Commissioners of Port of Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Co., 26 Pac. Rep. 375 (Cal.). Contract — Waiver of Condition — Insurance. — Where an insurance com- pany, after the destruction of the property, denies all liability on the ground that the policy was void, it thereby in effect waives all its rights under certain stipulations in the policy requiring proofs of loss, etc., and sixty days within which to pay, and a suit