Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/534

 Rh state of facts. The plainiiff, a maiilen lady, sought a de cree that she was entitled to a half share in a blue Persian cat, Koy by name, and that the accounts of the partnership be taken. It seems that during the kittenhood of the cat the defendant, also a maiden lady, gave it into the charge of the plaintiff, who nurtured and cherished it at a great cost. Thereafter the cat developed an amazing capacity fur prize-winning, gathering in all the chief trophies at the different cat-shows. It was entered at the Crystal Palace show in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant under the rule requiring the names of the animals' owners to be registered. After the development of the winning streak the plaintiff denied that the defendant had any property in, the cat. The Lord Chancellor said, however, that he was of the opinion that a partnership existed between the parties, and therefore he would order that the accounts of the partnership be taken, lie also granted an injunction restraining defendant from selling or dealing with the cat in any way prejudicial to the plaintiff's property in it." One cat and two old maids — we take it they were old or they would not have had a joint cat — can make a great deal of business for the courts.

NOTES OF CASES. Sunday Shaving. — Several State courts have sustained a black eye by a recent decision of the Federal supreme court upholding the constitution ality of laws forbidding barbers to exercise their public calling on Sunday. Such laws have been condemned in Tacoma v. Krech, 15 Wash., 296; 34 L. R. A., 68; Eden v. People, 161 Illinois, 296; Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal., 468; 32 L. R. A., 664; State v. Granneman, 132 Mo., 326. These decisions are based mainly on the ground that this is class leg islation and unduly deprives the class of its property. In the California case the court deny the right of the legislature to enforce Sunday rest upon barbers be cause they have not done so as to certain other classes. In this company the single case of People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y., 195, holding such laws constitutional, seems rather lonesome; but now appears the Federal judicial angel, in a great wakening light, and lo! Ben Irving Vann's name leads all the rest! The opinion written by that judge is affirmed, although it prevailed in his own court by a bare majority, three judges dis senting. There was, however, in that case a feature which does not appear in any of the others, and ren dered the act more liable to criticism than the others, namely, that the barbers of New York City and Sara toga Springs were excepted to the extent of being allowed to carry on their business on Sunday until I P.M. Two of the dissenting judges regarded that as a fatal constitutional error, inasmuch as it dis criminated among the very class in question. Judge Vann got around this provision by saying: "The statute treats all barbers alike within the same locali ties." We must confess that we are not altogether

497

satisfied that this is not a weak spot in the law, and are curious to see how the Federal court treats it. Judge Bartlett dissented on the ground that the good offices of the barber "are a work of necessity," which we take to be nonsense. At all events, Judge Bartlett will find few to go so far as he when he says : " The act is, in my judgment, a specimen of grotesque and absurd legislation, resting upon no principle of public policy, and utterly indefensible under any reasonable or proper exercise of the police power." A man might just as warrantablv say that the boot-black's vocation is a work of necessity on Sunday. People can get "shined up" on Saturday evening, or shine them selves on Sunday. Barbers themselves would like to rest on Sunday. Felony Disqualifying Physicians. — A novel question has recently been passed upon by the Fed eral supreme court, in Hawker v. People, namely, the constitutionality of a statute making it a mis demeanor for any one to practice medicine after having been convicted of a felony. In this case the conviction was before the enactment, and was of abortion. The supreme court of New York held the act invalid as to prior convictions (14 App. Div. 188), one judge dissenting. This was reversed by the court of appeals (152 N. Y. 234), two judges dissenting, and one concurring in the result solely on the ground that the record did not show that the defendant ever was a physician, and the prevailing opinion laid stress on this fact, and this judgment is now affirmed by the Federal supreme court, three jus tices dissenting. The grounds of dissent stated by O'Brien, J., in the court of appeals, were first, the statute is wholly prospective in its language, and second, it inflicts an additional punishment. The statute forbids any person to practice medicine "who has ever been convicted of a felony," and pronounces it a misdemeanor to attempt to practice "after con viction of a felony." The basis of the present judg ment is that the statute should be regarded as if it in terms declared that one who had violated the criminal laws should be deemed of such bad char acter as to be unfit to practice medicine, and that the record of the trial and conviction should be conclu sive evidence. A Foolish Old Woman. — The law will protect children both young and old from imposition. In Orchardson v. Cofield, 171 Ill. 14, 40 L. R. A. 256, it was held that a woman eighty-six years old. suffer ing from an incurable disease and having an insane delusion respecting the superhuman powers of a man much younger than herself, and whose character for morality is notoriously the very opposite of her own, is incapable of contracting a valid marriage with him,