Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/149

 128

375; 3 Am. St, Kep, 594; Carrington v. St. Louis, 89 Mo. 208. These cases are cited by Judge Elliott in his work on Roads and Streets, p. 463. But notice to a city marshal, charged with no duty and clothed with no power in regard to the inspection or repair of streets, is not notice to the city : Cook v. City of Anamosa, 66 Iowa, 427. If anything could seem strange in the law, it would seem strange that courts should have been called on to pronounce a principle so self evident.

Remote Cause of Injury.—A cause of injury that must have been viewed through the small end of an opera glass, is found in Mulvano v. The Anchoria, 77 Fed. Rep. 994. The libellant, an emi grant from Londonderry, his wife, and his son, about three years of age, were steerage passengers on the steamship. The party were at supper, and the steward was supplying hot gruel from a bucket, when he slipped, or was hit, and some of the gruel spat tered on the face of the young son of Erin. The steward testified that he was run against by a small child at play. On the other hand it was contended that his feet slipped on a wet spot on the deck, caused by drippings from a water cooler, the faucet of which was not shut tight, and the pail which should have been underneath was out of place. All this, the court concluded, was too uncertain and too remote to warrant a recovery and a sale of the steamship, and the enterprising party from London derry were defeated in their attempt to earn a little money on the passage. Human1ty Toward Ch1ldren and W1ves.—Two interesting cases concerning the domestic relations come to observation in turning over the pages of Phillips' "North Carolina Reports." In the Matter of Ambrose, p. 91, the Court refused to take two female colored children, of the ages respectively of thir teen and fifteen, who, as well as their parents, had been slaves, away from their mother and step-father, who had properly cared for them, and bind them out to apprenticeship to others. The humanity of the Court was shown in the following remarks : — "I remember that when I was at the bar, the county court of Granville had ordered sundry orphans to be brought to court to be bound out. Among them were three or four who were neat and clean, and their mother was with them. She cried much, but said not a word. Upon inquiring, it was found that she was an honest, industrious woman and

widow, who labored hard for her children, and that just when they could begin to help her the rapacity of some bad man sought to take them away. Some gentleman of the bar suggested, that instead of taking away her children, there should be a contribu tion to enable her to keep them, and it was readily responded to by the Court and the bar and the crowd, and a handsome sum was given to her, and she kept her children." That is just like a lot of bad, selfish lawyers! The other case exhibits a rather smaller degree of deli cacy of feeling, and singularly, the opinion is pro nounced by the same judge. At p. 453, in State v. Rhodes, the syllabus reads : " The laws of this State do not recognize the right of the husband to whip his wife, but our courts will not interfere to punish him for moderate correction of her, even if there had been no provocation for it." The jury had found that the prisoner had struck his wife " three licks, with a switch about the size of one of his fingers (but not as large as a man's thumb)," and the trial judge held that this was within the law. This theory was disapproved on appeal, but the prisoner was let off from the charge of assault and battery. The Court uttered the following curious sentiments : "Our conclusion is that family government is. recognized by law as being as complete in itself as the State government is in itself, and yet subordi nate to it; and that we will not interfere with or attempt to control it, in favor of either husband or wife, unless in cases where permanent or malicious injury is inflicted or threatened, or the condition of the party is intolerable. For however great are the evils of ill temper, quarrels, and even personal conflicts inflicting only temporary pain, they are not comparable with the evils which would result from raising the curtain, and exposing to public curiosity and criticism the nursery and the bed chamber. Every household has, and must have, a government of its own, modelled to suit the temper, disposition and condition of its inmates. Mere ebullitions of passion, impulsive violence, and temporary pain, affection will soon forget and forgive, and each mem ber will find excuse for the other in his own frailties. But when trifles are taken hold of by the public, and the parties are exposed and disgraced, and each endeavors to justify himself or herself by criminating the other, that which ought to be forgotten in a day will be remembered for life." No man, however, can be wise at all times, and the same judge, in State v. Mabrey, 64 N.C., 592, drew the line at sticks, and held that the husband was punishable for threatening the wife with a knife.