Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/368

 The Lawyers Easy Chair.

337

arise from inevitable accident, or the act of God, nor did it result from insurrection, or the work of a mob. The court waxed eloquent and indignant thus : —

IGNORANCE NO DEFENCE то PERJURY. — The inability of the defendant to spell according to the generally accepted traditions did not seem to avail him in Williams v. State, Alabama, 12 South. Rep 808. The indictment was as follows : —

"The whisky claimed for in this action was not de stroyed by a flood. Part of it was stolen by thieves after the flood subsided, and the rest of it was destroyed by a volunteer guard of citizens, who had watched and pro tected the train during the night following the flood and part of the next day, as the easiest way of keeping it from falling into the hands of the same dangerous class of men who had gotten a taste of it on the previous afternoon. The flood was therefore not the cause of the loss, but the occasion the opportunity for its plunder by bad men. The thieves came in the wake of the flood to pick up and appropriate what the more merciful waters had spared. They came to this train, and began to force open the doors of some of the cars. The conductor, and part, if not all, of his crew.-came upon the ground at about the same time. They saw an ax being used to open one or more of the cars, but they made no effort to defend the train or drive away the thieves. They did not so much as to remonstrate with them, or order them away, but turning their backs, they surrendered the train and its freight to the tender mercies of the vagabonds who had attacked it, and went away from the neighborhood. Private citizens came soon after, drove the thieves out of and away from the train, and stood guard over it all night and until the middle of the next day; but the train men seem to have had neither part nor lot in the effort to save the property of their employer. The reason was given by one of them while on the witness stand with a cool, deliberate heartlessness not often met with in the most hardened criminals. He said he did not try to help the citizens save the cars and their contents because he ' had no orders to do so.' He stood and looked on. He saw the perils of his employer's prop erty. He saw citizens, with no personal interest involved, trying to save it, but he did not help, because he ' had no orders.' Whether he and others like him were cowards shivering with fear in the presence of a few thieves, whom unarmed citizens drove away, or were thieves at heart, and in full sympathy with those who were trying to loot the cars that they should have defended, is a matter of no con sequence. In either case they neglected their obvious duty. The railroad company was represented in the car riage and safe-keeping of the freight on the train by the men to whom the train had been committed. If they deserted their posts, and left the goods uncared for, and they were stolen or destroyed, their employer must suffer for their inefficiency. Under the facts of this case the loss sued for did not arise from inevitable accident or the act of God. It did not result irom insurrection or the public enemy. It was not the work of a mob. It was due in part to plain stealing, done in daylight, in the presence of the train-men, and without the slightest resistance or re monstrance on their part. For the rest, it was due to the action of citizens who, after having guarded what remained for nearly twenty-four hours, destroyed it, when they could no longer keep up their watch over it, rather than see it consumed by the human brutes to whom it had been aban doned by the train-men." 43

"The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Turner Williams, with the intent to injure or defraud, did falsely make or forge an instru ment in writing, in words and figures substantially as follows . — 'Mr. C.brint let wash horn have two dollars in trade an oblige W t L Au 27 1892' "The said Turner Williams meaning and intending to express in and by said instrument that W. T. Lyles had written an order dated August 27, 1892, to Mr. C. Bryant, to let Wash Holmes have two dollars in trade, or the said Turner Williams, with the intent to injure or defraud, uttered and published as true said above-described written instrument, the said instrument having been falsely made or forged, and the said Turner Williams interpreting and understanding said instrument to be an order from W. T. Lyles to Mr. C. Bryant to let Wash Holmes have two dollars in trade, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." Such misspelling was certainly against the dignity of the State. A LUNATIC WIFE. — In Pile v. Pile, 22 S. W. Rep. 215, it was held that lunacy is not a ground for divorce, though it prevents the wife from discharg ing her conjugal duties. Why this case was marked "Not to be officially reported," is hard to discover, for there is nothing in the decision to be ashamed of. Pryor, J., said: — "It is argued that this mental disease is such as to pre vent the wife from discharging her conjugal duties, and the husband from enjoying tlfat intercourse with the wife resulting from the marriage relation. We cannot give such an enlarged meaning to the statute. Here the wife has a mind diseased without her fault She lived happily with her husband for several years after the marriage, and dis charged all the obligations and duties pertaining to the marriage relation. This relation is presumed to have been entered into by reason of the love and affection the two had for each other; and to adjudge that the misfortunes of this life, originating from causes over which neither have control, depriving the husband of the right of enjoy ing his baser passions, is a ground for divorce, would be placing mankind on a level with brute creation, and mak ing the real virtues and happiness of married life subordi nate to the enjoyment of mere animal propensities This man, when he took the unfortunate woman to he his wife, vowed at the altar to love, cherish, and protect her in sick ness and in health, and whether the wife is diseased in mind or body, his marriage vow should and must be