Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/442

 Latest Important Cases length of his legal residence in such precinct, county and state, and that he has removed into that precinct since the last registration of electors at the last election and that he is a legal voter of such precinct, supported by an affidavit of a registered voter and house holder of such precinct, that he knows such voter and that his statements as to the time of his residence, as aforesaid, are correct, and that such person is a legal voter in such precinct." The Court said: "In cities where the City Elections Act applies many persons possessing the necessary qualifications of legal voters may be denied the right to vote at a primary election because the law has provided no means for their registration. If voters where registration is required as a condition pre cedent to the right to vote at a primary elec tion were given an opportunity to register within thirty days previous to the primary, then if they failed or neglected to register, and thereby lost their right to vote, it would afford no just ground of complaint against the law; but where they are deprived of the right to vote because the law has not given them an opportunity to do that which it makes compulsory on them to do in order to be entitled to vote, and in other localities in the state not under the operation of such law voters similarly situated are allowed to vote, there is just ground of complaint of in equality." With section 44, and also section 11 elimi nated as void, the Act is held incomplete for the purposes for which it was intended and therefore unconstitutional in its entirety. Election Laws. Indictments under Common Law Valid—Criminal Conspiracy in Ballot Frauds. N. J. Common law indictments of Charles Bienstock, Thomas Brodell, Peter J. McDonald and John F. Kelly of Jersey City for con spiracy in connection with alleged Presi dential election frauds were sustained by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in a decision rendered June 23. No statutes, federal or state, made the actions of the defendants criminal. Justice Voorhees, who wrote the opinion, said that the purposes of political conven tions for the recommendation of Presidential candidates are public purposes, and interfer ence with such expression by the unlawful means of tampering with ballots "is inter fering with a public act and one in the exer

415

cise of which all citizens are entitled to protection from combinations designed to pre vent the honest use of these agencies. Rights unknown to the common law, if they be in truth rights, are protected by the principles of the common law, and their infringement by conspiracy is punishable by the criminal law." Estoppel. Person Setting Up Not Preju diced Thereby.—Insurance. Wash. One insured in a beneficiary association indicated his purpose to absent himself from his family for a few days, but from that time nothing was heard of him. For two years following his absence the premiums were paid by his wife. Thereafter an opportunity presented itself to the wife to dispose of her real property, for which purpose she secured a divorce that she might convey a good title to the realty. Seven years after the hus band's disappearance his wife instituted an action for the insurance. The association in sisted that by bringing the action for divorce she had expressed her belief that her husband lived and that after she has ceased payments on his certificate, she was estopped to assert that he was dead. In Butler v.. Supreme Court I. O. F., 101 Pac. Rep. 481, the Wash ington Supreme Court decided that the wife was not estopped to assert her husband's death within the two years following his disappearance, as the association could not have been injured by reason of her conduct. Evidence. Hypothetical Questions to Experi Witnesses— How Framed with Reference to Questioner's Theories. Neb. The rule announced in Hamblin v. State, 115 N. W. 850, that "in propounding hypothetical questions to expert witnesses, it is allowable for each party to the contro versy to submit such questions upon the theory of the case contended for by the side proposing them," was construed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, in Landis & Schick v. Watts, decided June 11, not to mean that a party propounding hypothetical ques tions may do so upon a theory at variance with testimony whicb he^.hrmself has given, either in person or through other witnesses whom he has previously introduced. In such a case the questions must be so framed as to fairly reject the party's theory as shown by the facts admitted or proved by him. And where the party's own evidence corroborates evidence which has been introduced by the other party to the action, such questions