Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/325

 296

168.) It might be deemed too arduous an under taking to endeavor to keep her mouth filled. We must say, however, that the plaintiff was unwisely advised. Had we been her counsel, we should have recommended her to marry the man without any claim for the loss, to fill the cavity temporarily with spruce gum, and spring the permanent necessity on him after marriage. Tooth-filling is certainly a necessary for a wife, although the material employed must be regulated by the station and circumstances of the husband.

Another Tooth Case. — In spite of our last legal assertion, we must call attention to a case in which, according to the " Law Journal," " his Honor Judge Lumley Smith decided that a new set of false teeth was not a necessary for which the separated wife of a Sussex saddler was entitled to pledge her husband's credit. We hope," continues the "Journal," "the teeth supplied were as sound as the law; but in giving judgment, the learned judge hardly gave sufficient effect to the maxim that the luxuries of one genera tion are the necessaries of the next, and its possible application to the case of artificial teeth, for he said that man had done without them for centuries — in fact, during the reign of the common law — and that no parish doctor would order them to be supplied as parish relief, to which the modern philanthropic politician would, like Bumble, reply, * The Poor Law's a hass.' We have heard of another husband who took a different view of his rights as to his wife's false teeth. His house was burnt and she within it, whereupon he included in his claim on his fire-policy 10/. in respect of his interest in the false teeth." Let our contemporary make a note of a case in this country, Gilman v. "Andrus, 28 Vermont, 241, which was once metrically reported as follows : — If A. makes artif1cial teeth for Mrs. B., And B., well knowing it, does not forbid the set, As matter of estoppel, it is plain to see It " does not lie in hit mouth " to deny the debt.

Is a Cab a Public Place? — The " London Law Journal" says: " Three cabmen of St. Luke's were found by a constable at three on a Sunday morning playing at dice for money in a four-wheeler on a public stand, and were charged at Worship Street before Mr. Haden Corser for this heinous mode of whiling away their hours of expectation for East-end fares. The magistrate raised, and has now decided, the question whether a four-wheeler was a public place. A carriage in a train has been held to be a public place (Langrish v. Archer, 52 Law J. Rep.

M. C. 47), but when in a siding and not in use it has been held not to be so (Kegina v. Freestone, 25 Law J. Rep. M. C. 121), and an omnibus is also a public place within the Vagrancy Act, 1824. But the magistrate felt posed as to whether a cab on a stand and not actually in use by a fare was in the same position as a railway carriage out of employ ment. So two further points were argued — viz. whether the business end (for gambling purposes) of a particular cabman was in the street or the cab, and whether the cab itself was in an open place to which the public had access. On the last argument the case was ultimately decided (on April 17), on the ground that the cab was in a public street, and that gaming in it was therefore gaming in a public place. This decision will affect those persons who play cards in breaks and drags on their way to and from bean feasts or race meetings." We expect thatall Boston will rise to inquire what a " beanfeast" is. We do not see any escape from this decision by a court which holds that an open umbrella, a wooden box, an omni bus or a urinal may be a " public place." In Warden v. Tye, 2 C. P. Div. 74, it is held that a publican may lawfully get drunk in his own public house after it is shut up for the night. The publican may, but the public can't. Putting up the shutters converts the inn into a castle, and we all know what license is conceded to one in his own castle.

Chameleons. — The changing quality of the laws may well suggest the tradition of the chameleon's altering its hue to correspond with that of the object to which it clings for the time being. The " Canada Legal News " brings us report of a learned argument by Mr. McGibbon, Q.C., of Montreal, to substan tiate the claim that the chameleon is a " domestic animal" within the statute against cruelty to animals, the cruelty in question being the selling them as "pets, ornaments and toys," especially for young women to wear alive as breast ornaments. The learned counsel contended that they are not "wild," nor •• vicious," nor " ferocious," and hence are domestic. The police magistrate, Mr. Dugas, de nied the claim, observing: — . " The craze which temporarily may exist for having pos session of such a beast, whether actuated by curiosity, by the novelty of the thing, or by the desire to make a study of an animal really interesting in its nature and its habits, do not, for the time being at all events, make it fall within the category of those animals which have been domesticated in this country. I admit that the category of animals which can be submitted to domestication can be extended or diminished in number, according to circumstances and localities, but it is not sufficient that in order to be consid ered as having been brought to domestication, on account