Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/209

 188

The Green Bag

those presented on the defendant's behalf Appellate Division of the Supreme Court were always to be weighed, "but after all affirming an order at Special Term denying there is a practical side. a motion to set aside the summons. If, "Doubtless an artist, when looking in his however, he comes for the double purpose studio upon the model before him in the of attending court and attending to business figure of a perfectly formed young woman having no connection with the trial, the standing completely nude may. . . not have privilege does not attach. Finucane v. one obscene, indecent or impure thought. . . . Warner, decided Jan. 26, 1909. But it by no means follows that if he should Real Property. Clear Title of Seashore open wide the doors of his studio and fill it Lands—Jus Privatum and Jus Publicum— with people from the crowded streets, they Crown Rights in Our Common Law. N. Y. would be moved by the same lofty and pure The vendor of a tract of land on the shore feelings. . . . And so a reader may be. . . of Staten Island brought an action of specific interested in the development of the char acter of a woman—no matter how wanton— performance against the vendee under a con as a merely psychic study. . . and it may tract for the sale. The question at issue was be that the author. . . was in full sympathy whether the plaintiff's title was market with such a state of mind. . . . But such an able. The defendant contended that the author cannot expect that the reading public, Norwood patent of 1676 did not convey the tideway or foreshore and that the title to as a whole, will so read her production." property including it was consequently not Public Schools. Co- Education of Races— marketable. Fifteenth Amendment—Equal Advantages. The New York Supreme Court, in deciding Kas. the case, adopted the principles enunciated A Kansas statute provides that children of in Town of Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 New the white and colored races while below the York 74, and Barnes v. The Midland R. R. grammar grades may be required to attend Terminal Co. (Nov. 10, 1908), to the effect that separate schools. The children of plaintiff had the jus privatum of the crown, by which the been attending a school with white children, English sovereign was deemed owner of the but were directed to attend another situated soil of the sea and of navigable rivers, was near railroad shops, the way to which was inapplicable to the spirit of our institutions, crossed by sixteen railroad tracks. These facts and was abandoned to the proprietors of the were alleged to make the attendance at school uplands so as to have become a common hazardous. In Williams v. Board of Educa right and thus the common law of the state. tion, 99 Pac. Rep. 216, the Kansas Supreme It was held that the state, by acts of the Court upheld the contention of plaintiff that Legislature authorizing solid filling of land these circumstances amounted to a denial under water to new bulkhead lines in the of equal educational facilities. It concluded interest of commerce, had extinguished the that while it was not necessary to permit the jus publicum, the public rights of fishing, attendance of negro children at any certain boating, bathing and navigation, in the former school, one must be provided where they can tideway, and that the private rights remain enjoy the same educational advantages. (Com ing to constitute a fee were vested in the pare with cases noted in Green Bag, Jan. owner of the adjacent upland. Consequently as the plaintiff's title is not burdened by any 1909, p. 31.) public use it is marketable. John Bardes et Procedure. Exemption from Service of Civil al. v. Martin Herman (Feb. 1909). Process— Non-Resident Attending Trial in Real Property. Cloud on Title—Cancella State. N. Y. The New York Court of Appeals, in a tion of Unenforceable Covenant— Equity Juris decision recently handed down, held that a diction. N. Y. non-resident coming into the state for the Where a deed from one religious corpora sole purpose of being a witness in an action is tion to another contained a covenant in terms protected from the service of civil process running with the land, to the effect that the provided he returns home with reasonable premises conveyed should be used only for dispatch after the trial. The defendant, a church purposes, and the grantee desired to resident of California, had been served with a have the covenant canceled in order that the summons, and appealed from an order of the market value of the premises, which it desired