Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/85

 66

THE GREEN BAG

Dillon's Mun. Corp. 660, and note; Arthur v. Cohoes, 9 N. Y. Supp. (Sup.) 160; Young v. Rothrock, 121 Iowa, 588, 96 N. W. 1105; Langan v. Atchison, 35 Kan. 318, 11 Pac. 38, 57 Am. Rep. 165; Hart v. Board (N. J. Sup.) 29 Atl. 490; Speir v. Brooklyn (N. Y.) 34 N. E. 727, 21 L. R. A. 641. 36 Am. St. Rep. 664; Landau v. N. Y. (N. Y.) 72 N. E. 631; Thomas on Neg. p. 996; Larson v. Grand Forks (Dak.) 19 N. W. 416; Thompson on Negligence, § 1234; Wynn v. Yonkers, 80 App. Div 217, 80 N. Y Supp. 257; State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 185, 38 Am. Rep. 11 7; Baltimore v. Marriott 9 Md. 160; Fort Worth v. Crawford, 74 Tex. 404, 12 S. W. 52, 15 Am. St. Rep. 840; Harper v. Milwaukee, 30 Wis. 365. RAILROADS. (Injuries to Licensee.) Iowa. — The rule that even as to a licensee known to be on railroad property, or whose presence may reasonably be expected, the company owes a duty to avoid acts of negligence affirmative and active in character, and that a licensee is one who goes upon the grounds or tracks for purposes other than transportation, by permission express or implied, is applied in Croft v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Company, 108 N. W. 1053, where it is held that where the wife of a station agent was accus tomed to assist her husband with the work in the station office, which was known to the officers of the road in charge of the division and not objected to by them, she was a licensee and the road liable for injuries to her while in the office, owing to a derailment of a train, caused by run ning it at a dangerous speed over a defective track near the station. As to what permission is sufficient to constitute one a licensee, the court cites, Murphy v. Railway. 38 Iowa, 539; Kay v. Railway, 65 Pa. 269. 3 Am. Rep. 628; Berry v. Railway, 124 Mo. 223, 25 S. W. 229. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. (Rea sonableness of Regulations.) Wash. — The trou bles of a 'high school secret fraternity were brought before the Supreme Court of Washington in Wayland v. Board of School Directors of Dis trict No. 1 of Seattle, 86 Pac. 642. The school board being opposed to secret fraternities, enacted a rule that all students who should thereafter become members of a.ny high school fraternity should be denied all the privileges of the high school except those of the class room. Plaintiff, together with other students, subsequently joined a secret fraternity, known as the Gamma Eta Kappa, and the board in the enforcement of the rule denied such students participation in athletic, literary, military, and similar school organizations. The meetings of the fraternity were held at the

homes of the members after school hours, and with parental consent. The trial court denied plaintiff's right to an injunction, and on appeal, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts, cites Ballingers Ann. Codes & Sta. §§ 2334, 2339, and 2362, providing in substance, that pupils shall comply with the regulations established for the government of the schools and submit to the authority of teachers, and authorizing school directors to adopt and enforce such regulations as may be deemed essential to the well-being of the school: and holds that the school board had not exceeded its lawful authority. The argument of plaintiff emphasized the fact that the meetings were held after school hours and at the homes of the members, but the court said: " The board has not invaded the homes of any pupils, nor have they sought to interfere with parental custody or control, and has not said that these fraternities shall not meet at the various homes, nor have they attempted to control students out of school hours . . . and it would be difficult to confer a broader discretionary power than that conferred by the statutes. State ex rel. Stallard v. White, 82 Ind. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 496, is referred to as the only case mentioned, seeming to be related to the questions involved, in which the Supreme Court of Indiana held that the officers and trustees of Purdue University, a state institution, could not require an applicant, otherwise qualified, to sign a pledge relative to membership in Greek frater nities as a condition precedent to his admission as a student, and it is held that such case did not support the contentions of plaintiff, inasmuch as members of the " Gamma Eta Kappa " fraternity had not been refused admission to the high school, but the authorities had merely endeavored to exercise governmental control. The court employs a quotation from State ex rel. Stallard v. White, where it is said : " The admission of students in a public educational institution is one thing, and the government and control of students after they are admitted, and have become subject to the rules of the institution, is another thing." TORTS. (Libel —Practice.) Mass. — A case showing the burden upon one slandered in a foreign tongue is illustrated by Romano v. Devito, 78 N. E. 105. The original declaration in the case was in the English language, and it appeared that the words spoken were in the Italian language. The court then suggested that if that were so, there was a variance, whereupon plaintiff was permitted to amend by setting forth in Italian the words spoken and he then rested. Counsel for defendant then asked for a ruling that there was no evidence that the foreign words set forth in the declaration were spoken by the defendant,