Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/357

 270

THE GREEN BAG

patrick, who was subsequently legally executed for murder. The court refers to the English case of Amicable Society v. Holland, 4 Bligh (N- R.) 194, as' a leading case in which recovery under somewhat similar circumstances was denied, and discusses to some extent the old English laws and decisions relating to forfeitures of estates of felons and indicates that the decision in the Amicable Society case was probably influenced by them to some extent. All of these old laws and decisions were held inapplicable to conditions in America and the court refused to follow the decisions in the English case, but decided that the fact that the insured came to his death in the manner stated did not in any way release the insurance company from liability on the policy. LANDLORD AND TENANT. (Liability of Les sor of Theatre for Death of Patron.) La. — The action of McCain v. Majestic Bldg. Co., 45 So. Rep. 258, was brought by the parents of a young man who was killed by stepping through an unguarded door at a theatre and falling therefrom to the walk below. It seemed that the building which was owned by defendant was not entirely completed at the time of the accident, but had been leased to an amusement company and was to some extent at least in its control. The evidence went to show that the door from which deceased fell was marked "Exit," and had a red light suspended above it and was not locked or otherwise guarded; that no stairs had been put up to it and when deceased opened it and stepped out into the darkness he fell directly to the sidewalk, receiving the injuries from which he died. The programs of the per formance stated that the red lights indicated exists. Without passing on any question as to the liability of the lessee company giving the performance, the court held that the premises were so placed in their control as to relieve the lessor and denied recovery. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. (Validity of Stat ute.) Mass. — The validity of an amendment of the statute of limitations of Massachusetts was passed upon by the Supreme Judicial Court of that Commonwealth in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 N. E. Rep. 402. The statute of limitations in force prior to the amendment in question granted a period of six years for the bringing of actions of tort for injuries to the person against cities, but this was cut down to two years by the Laws of 1902, p. 322, c. 406, and no provision made restricting its operation as to causes of action then existing. Laws go into operation in that state within thirty days after their passage. Limita tions did not, as a matter of fact, operate on the cause of action in this case until a year and seven months after the statute was passed, but it was claimed that the act was invalid on the ground

that the thirty days during which its operation would be suspended as to causes of action on which the prior statute had almost run would not be a reasonable length of time as to them. The court comments on numerous cases involving somewhat similar questions and comes to the con clusion that in a small state like Massachusetts, where means of communication are so adequate, that the legislature would not be held to have abused its power by not giving a longer period, although a different rule might be applicable to larger states not having as great facilities for transmission of knowledge of passage of legisla tive enactments. MANDAMUS. (Criminal Law.) N.Y.Sup.Ct. — A peculiar state of affairs comes to light in Gow v. Bingham, 107 N. Y. Supp. ion, where mandamus is refused^on the ground that it is not the remedy applicable to the case though no other means of relief is suggested, save by voluntary action of the police department. Plaintiff, who was charged with grand larceny and forgery, while waiting at the office of the district attorney for the perfection of arrangements for bail, was taken in custody by a member of the police force, who accom panied him to police headquarters, where a photo graph and Bertillion measurements were made. He subsequently instituted mandamus proceed ings to compel the destruction of the records of measurements and the photograph. The court condemned the action of the police department in very strong terms, saying that the members who had participated in the acts complained of might be held liable to a civil action for damages and subjected to criminal prosecution for assault and criminal libel, but as there was no express statu tory duty imposed upon the police department to keep such records, mandamus would not lie to compel their destruction, as such remedy lies only "to compel one to do what ought to be done in the discharge of a public duty." PRACTICE. (New Trial.) 'N. Y. Sup. Ct. — The trial judge in the case of Rogers t1. Macbeth, re ported upon appeal to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in 108 N. Y. SupP74, refused defendant's request for a new trial, stating that his ground for so doing was his belief that no other or more intelligent or conscientious jury could be found than the one that heard the evidence in the case, though plainly stating that he did not consider the evidence sufficient to justify the verdict, but thought that another jur>' might perhaps give even heavier damages than the first one. The Appellate Division stamps the decision' of the trial court as a case of " paternal ism foreign to judicial function " and says "" the defendant chose to hazard another trial. 'c was not for the court to seek to save him fr0m