Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/615

 THE GREEN BAG

THE LIGHTER SIDE Christianity and the Law. — The editor be lieves that we do not study with sufficient care the reports of new cases. They are full of wisdom. The following example of modern judicial conundrums seemed to our correspondent too good to cut, so we print it entire through the courtesy of the West Publishing Company. Ellis v. Newbrough et al (Supreme Court of New Mexico), 27 Pac. Rep. 490. Freeman, J. This is a most extraordinary proceeding. So far as we have been enabled to extend our researches, it is without a prece dent. It comes to us by appeal from a judg ment of the district court for Dona Ana County, refusing to set aside a verdict of a jury in favor of the appellee. It is an action of trespass on the case. The declaration sets out substan tially the following cause of action, viz.: That, at the time of the committing of the grievances that the plaintiff complains of the defendants were engaged "in organizing and establishing a community called ' Faithists ' "; and, being so engaged, the defendants heretofore, to wit, about the years 1882, 1883, and 1884, wrong fully and corruptly contriving and intending to deceive and injure the plaintiff, issued and published certain false, fraudulent, and deceit ful writings, falsely and fraudulently and de ceitfully pretending in said writings to describe the true nature and objects of said community, and to set forth the true state of facts in con nection with said enterprise, and thereby to in duce the plaintiff to believe that said objects and purposes of the defendants, and said fact in connection with said enterprise, were far different from what they really were, and from what said defendants really intended they should be. The declaration then proceeds to set out what it is alleged the defendants held out the enterprise to be, viz.: That the prop erty of the community was to be held in com mon, — no one individual to have any separate title and property; that said community was to be conducted on principles of brotherly love, without master or leader to exercise control over the members; that all the members were to enjoy equally a permanent place in the com munity, with no authority on the part of any member or members to exclude another; that

said community was laid on principles of sound morality and purity of life; that the plaintiff, misled by these pretenses, was induced to be come a member of the community; "that he did then and there enter into said community with defendants; . . . did consecrate his life, his labor, and all his worldly effects and pros pects, together with those of his two children, placing all good faith and confidence in said community; whereas, in truth and in fact, said defendants knew at the time of making said false statements and pretenses that the prop erty of the said community home would not be held in common by the members of said community, but that the title thereto was then and would in future be vested by deed in one individual, to-wit, the defendant, Andrew M. Howland; and whereas, in truth and in fact, defendants well knew, before and at the time of making said false statements and misrepre sentations, that said community would not be conducted on principles of equality and kind ness, without a master." The declaration then proceeds to charge defendant New brough with acts of tyranny, and also with living a life of immorality, etc.; that, by reason of the false representations aforesaid, the plaintiff was induced to become a member of the community; and that he remained a mem ber of such community from October, 1884, until April, 1886, both he and his two children working for the improvement of the home; "and the plaintiff saith that the defendants refused, and still refuse, to pay plaintiff for his said work and labor, or any part thereof; by reason whereof plaintiff saith that he has sus tained great damage in loss of time and labor and opportunity and in the education of his children, and that he has suffered great anguish of mind in consequence of the dishonor and humiliation brought upon himself and his children by reason of his connection with said defendants in said community; to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of Si 0,000." To this unique and weird complaint a de murrer was interposed. The second and fourth grounds of demurrer are as follows: "(2) Because there are no sufficient facts alleged in plaintiff's said declaration to charge these defendants, or either of them, with any