Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/377

 346

ing of her child without joinder of his reputed father. The court referred to the statute which makes the mother the natural guardian of the bastard, and renders each capable of inheriting from and transmit ting inheritance to the other, and continued : — "Instead of being the son of nobody, as at common law, he has a mother who is recognized as such by our laws. The duty of supporting him rests upon her, and she is entitled to his services during minority. As the chief and principal incapacity of a bastard has been removed, so far as he and his mother are concerned, there seems to be no good reason why a statute which speaks of parents and children should not apply to a mother and her illegitimate child, unless there is something in the statute, or the subject about which it treats, to show that it was not intended to apply to persons standing in that relation. To say the mother of an illegitimate child cannot maintain a suit under the second section of the Damage Act is to say she cannot maintain one under the third and fourth sections, which do not fix the damages at a stated amount, but allow compensatory damages, not exceeding §5,000; a*d it is to say an illegitimate child cannot recover, under either section, for the loss of its mother. We cannot believe the Legislature ever intended such results. As the mother of an illegitimate child is, by our law, deemed and treated a mother, we think she is within the meaning of the Damage Act, and that the father of such child is not. This is but giving effect to what we understand to be the legislative policy of this State. It follows that the plaintiff can main tain this suit, and that the reputed father need not, and ought not to, be made a party."

"Christian Science." — In State v. Buswell, Nebraska Supreme Court, 58 N.W. Reporter, 728, the defendant had been indicted for practicing medi cine as a Christian Scientist, without a certificate from the State Board of Health, and a verdict in his favor, in effect rendered by direction of the Court, was reversed on appeal, on exceptions taken by the State. The statute in question provided that : — "Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this Act who shall operate on, pro fess to heal, or prescribe for or otherwise treat any physical or mental ailment of another; but nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit gratuitous services in case of emergency, and this Act shall not apply to commissioned surgeons of the United States Army or Navy, nor to nurses in their legitimate occupations, nor to the ad ministering of ordinary household remedies." The decision seems clearly sound, but counsel for the defendant argued : — "The defendant, and those of the same faith with him, believe, as a matter of conscience, that the giving of medicine is a sin; that it is placing faith in the power of

material things, which belongs alone to Omnipotence. To the Christian Scientist, it is as much a violation of the law of God to take drugs for the alleviation of suffering or the cure of disease, as for a Methodist clergyman to take the name of his God in vain to relieve his overwrought feel ings. It is as much the duty of the defendant, as his conscience and understanding teach him his duty, to visit the sick and afflicted, and relieve their distress of mind, as it is for the Presbyterian minister to go into his pulpit on Sabbath morning, and preach the Word of God according to the understanding of that denomination, or visit the bedside of one of his sick parishioners, and administer that religious consolation which is so dear to the heart of the Christian, and which is apparently so necessary to their spiritual welfare. The act of the latter, the eyes of all Christendom look upon in admiration, as the performance of a Christian duty. Upon the former, the able counsel for the State would have the world look as upon the act of a criminal." The " New York Law Journal " observes : — "The opinion of the Supreme Court of Nebraska con tains a discussion of the merits of the case from the ' Scientists' ' own standpoint, which is cleverly put, but not very germane to the legal issue involved. The Court cites texts "from the Bible itself condemning 'healing' for pecuniary reward. But towards the close of the opinion the concern of the public in the system of Christian Science is suggested by this reference to the statute under con sideration : ' The object of the statute is to protect the afflicted from the pretensions of the ignorant and avari cious, and its provisions are not limited to those who attempt to follow beaten paths and established usages.' Harsh as the criminal condemnation of the defendant for ' Scientist ' practices may at first sight seem, one cannot say that such interpretation of the Nebraska law is unnecessary for public protection."

Animals — Domestic — Lions. — It has recently been held by the English Court of Appeal that a lion is not a "domestic animal," within the purview of the statute against cruelty to domestic animals. So the menagerie keepers may pull out his teeth and cut off his claws and prod him with hot irons, in the promotion of their exhibitions, without liability to answer. This seems very ungallant in the courts of the British lion. What would be said of a court of the United States which should hold that any base intruder might pluck the tail-feathers of the great American bird-o'-freedom? For the sake of national sentiment, if for no other reason, these noble emblems should be regarded as "domestic" to the point of protection against torture. This English decision is enough to make the Nelson lions rear right up and roar, and extort a sympathetic echo from the great stone beast at Berne.