Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/288

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES held that an arrest for misdemeanor without a warrant cannot be justified if made after the occasion has passed, though committed in the presence of the arresting officer, and it was con tended that according to the officers' own testi mony the occasion for arresting defendant as a vagrant had long passed, since if he had known him to be a vagrant at all he had known it for several months. The court concludes that the fact that defendant would not have been arrested if he had confined himself to vagrancy, did not render his arrest for that offense illegal. The officer knew that defendant was still a vagrant at the moment of the arrest, and having heard that he had committed a crime, he had a sufficient reason, as he had a perfect right, to make the arrest at the time that he did. CRIMINAL LAW. (Arrest Without War rant.) Va. S. Ct. In Hill v. Smith, 59 S. E Rep. 475, a prisoner was discharged on habeas corpus on the ground that he was not held in accordance with the law of the land. He pos sibly deserved a different fate than to escape through a technicality of the law. Acting on in formation in his possession, a police officer had arrested him on suspicion of being the perpetrator of a felony of the gravest nature. Instead, how ever, of charging him with being suspected of this specific offense, he was arrested and held merely as a suspicious character. The court in holding that the detention of the prisoner was unlawful, draws a broad distinction between holding a prisoner because he is suspected of the commission of a specific offense and holding him on a warrant which merely charges that he is a suspicious char acter. An officer it continues, may arrest, if he has reasonable ground to suspect the prisoner of having committed a felony, and having arrested liim should take him before a police justice whose duty it would be, without unnecessary delay, to formulate a specific complaint, informing him of the offense of which he was accused. On such a complaint he might be held lawfully until his case could be disposed of according to law. Such course, not having been pursued, the prisoner was detained unlawfully and was entitled to his dis charge. CRIMINAL LAW. (Evidence of Tracking Accused by Dogs.) Ohio. —• The law relating to evidence of the use of bloodhounds in tracking criminals is of recent origin ond somewhat un settled. An interesting discussion of decisions bearing" on it is found in the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of State v. Dickerson, 82 N. E. Rep. 969. Defendant had been convicted of

215

murder, and on appeal contended that his con stitutional right to be confronted by the wit nesses was invaded by admission ol evidence that bloodhounds trailed him from the scene of the crime to his home and claimed that even if that assignment of error should be held unfounded there was not sufficient preliminary proof of the qualifications of the dogs. The court dismissed the first contention by merely saying that the persons telling of the acts and conduct 01 the ani mals were the witnesses and not the dogs, and attempted to formulate a rule regarding the pre liminary proof of qualification. DEAD BODIES. (Rights of Relatives as to Burial and Removal.) N. H. — The perplexing question " What are the rights of surviving rela tives as to the disposition of a dead body? " was considered by the Supreme Court of New Hamp shire in Wilson v. Read, 68 Atl. Rep. 37. The controversy arose over the opening of the grave of an infant sister of plaintiff a half century after her decease and depositing therein the remains of defendant's mother, the stepmother of plaintiff. No traces ot the body of the child could be found, but the earth from the grave was removed to an other location. The court held that as no re mains could be discovered, a decree commanding their restoration to the original place of sepulchre would be impossible of performance and hence futile. There is some discussion as to the general rights of relatives and of the expressed desires of persons since deceased as to burial. The court says that defendants, who owned the lot, " had not the absolute right to disturb the grave already upon the lot. Neither has the plaintiff, as next of kin, an absolute right to prevent the removal of the remains of one buried there, or other use of the land. The rights of each are bounded by. rules of propriety and reasonableness determinable by a court of equity." DIVORCE. (Proceedure.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — A very peculiar state of affairs is disclosed in the divorce suit of Adams v. Adams, 106 N. Y. Supp. 1064. An interlocutory decree fqr divorce had been entered for plaintiff on the ordinary condition that an absolute decree might be entered after three months. At the expiration of that time plaintiff appeared to have changed her mind and concluded she did not want a divorce, that she still retained affection for her husband and hoped for a reconciliation. She therefore asked that the cause be dismissed. Defendant however, was not satisfied to drop matters in that way and asked that final decree be entered in accordance with the interlocutory one. The court recognized the novelty of the position of a