Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/271

 250

The Green Bag

circumstances that the law regards as suffi cient to justify the taking, is the criminal intent, and the only criminal intent that can exist in case of murder (excepting, of course, where the killing is done in the commission of an independent felony). So, ordinarily, a criminal intent is an intent to do knowingly and willfully that which is condemned as wrong by the law and common morality of the country, and if such an intent exists, it is neither justification nor excuse that the actor intended by its commission to accomplish some ultimate good (1 Bishop's Crim. Law, sec. 341)." Defamation. Fair Comment—Criticisms Offered in Good Faith. Ill. The Illinois Supreme Court, in People v. Fuller, 238 Ill. (adv. sheets) 116, held that a false charge that a county treasurer had "filched" a sum of money from the county treasury, or that he had intentionally taken money from the county for his own use to which he was not entitled, was a libel. The public conduct of all public officers is a matter of public concern and may be made the subject of fair and reasonable criticism, but this privilege does not extend to false and defama tory statements imputing criminal offense or moral delinquency to the officer, even though they are made in good faith concerning an act of the officer in the discharge of his duties. Defamation. Publishing Wrong Portrait— Evidence. N. Y. Appellant, desiring to publish a sensational article involving a woman of evil reputation, obtained her photograph on a button. The portrait was published over the name of the criminal. The dissimilarity was so great that a person of ordinary intelligence before using the picture would have made further investigation. In Burkhardt v. Press Pub. Co., 114 N. Y. Supp. 451, appellant com plained of the admission in evidence of another picture for comparison. The New York Supreme Court held the picture admis sible and sustained a judgment for punitive damages. Employers' Liability. Fellow Servant— Engineer or Section Foreman and Section Hand. U. S. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit handed down a decision in an accident case which was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice

Moody laying down the rule that a railway engineer and a section foreman are both fellow-servants of a section hand, and failure so to instruct a jury is reversible error where the jury may well have based its verdict on the carelessness of either the section foreman or the engineer. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bowman, decided Feb. 23, 1909. Extradition. Non- Extraditable Offenses— Acts Ordered by Revolutionary Leaders. U. S. On the findings of Samuel M. Hitchcock, Esq., Commissioner, the discharge of Jan Janoff Pouren was ordered in March by the United States District Court for the southern district of New York, in Matter of Albert Schlippenbach, Imperial Consul- General (N. Y. L. J. Apr. 8). The Commissioner found these facts to have been established:— "(1) At the time when the offenses were committed the Russian Empire, including the district in which the offenses were committed, was in a state of revolution. "(2) That the accused was identified with and a part of the revolutionary party; that the offenses committed by him were com mitted under the directions of the leaders of that party, and were incidental to the political distrubances existing in the district." Indictment. Incompetency of Evidence when Not Excluded on Motion. Ill. It has been decided in Illinois, in People v. Scattura, 238 Ill. (advance sheets) 313, that an indictment charging an offense in the terms and language of the statute creating it is sufficient, if the words of the statute so far particularize the offense that by their use alone the defendant is notified, with reasonable certainty, of the precise offense with which he is charged. (Per Dunn, J.) Where in an answer to a proper question, incompetent testimony is given, the court should, on motion, exclude such testimony; but the fact that the party against whom the testimony is given does not move to exclude it does not waive his right to raise the question of its competency. Insane Persons. Duties of Committee as Landlord—Liability of Committee for Torts. N. Y. A question of first impression as to the individual liability of the committee of an insane person, for alleged negligence in fail ing to keep in repair the common passageway of rented premises, arose in Rooney v. People's