Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/443

 416

The Green Bag

should fairly reflect all of the facts so ad mitted or proved by both sides. But two of the judges dissented. Insane Criminals. Commitment After Ver dict of Insanity— Notice and Hearing—Con stitutionality. N. Y. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, second department, sus tained an order of the Special Term dismiss ing a writ of habeas corpus in favor of Harry K. Thaw, in People v. Chandler, decided in June, and upheld section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, providing for the commitment of a defendant acquitted on the ground of insan ity, as constitutional. For, as was said by Mr. Justice Jenks:— "The Legislature contemplated that upon the trial for a crime the investigation into the insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of a crime, pleaded by the de fendant, might satisfy the Court that if the defendant were entitled to be freed absolutely upon an acquittal based upon such insanity, the verdict would not only exonerate the defendant, but in effect might let loose one then so insane as to be a menace to public peace and safety, and . . . therefore the Legislature expressly limited the effect of such an acquittal in the exercise of the police power, so that it might not be an absolute discharge in course, but that the Court might order the detention of the defendant as a dangerous insane person until his reason was restored. "And I think that such a defendant, by this provision of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure, had notice and a hearing that con templated the process whereby he might thus be committed, and that in any event the provisions of express law whereby he could forthwith institute proceedings to establish his sanity and his consequent right to instant discharge satisfy the safeguards invoked against this provision of the law." (Re ported in N. Y. Law Journal, June 14, 1909). Insurance. Forfeiture for Non-Payment— Forfeiture Stipulation Must be Written into Contract to be Effective. Neb. Where the widow of a policyholder had been unsuccessful in securing payment of the sums due on two policies in which payment had been discontinued years before his death, the Supreme Court of Nebraska, in Haas v. N. Y. Mutual Life Ins. Co., decided June 11, applied the two following rules:—

"Forfeitures are looked upon by the courts with ill-favor, and will be enforced only when the strict letter of the contract requires it; and this rule applies with full force to policies of insurance." Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Jeary, 60 Neb. 338. "A clause stipulating for a forfeiture of a contract should not be aided or given effect by construction in a case where the plain meaning of the language used does not re quire it." Jensen v. Palatine Insurance Co., 116 N. W. Rep. 286. The Court, in deciding that the plaintiff could recover upon the policies by tendering all the overdue premiums, said:— "A life insurance policy, when once it takes effect by payment of the first year's premium and delivery of the policy, does not terminate at the end of the year, but it is a contract for the life of the assured. If the policy contains no provision for a forfeiture thereof by reason of a failure of the assured to pay subsequent premiums annually, a failure to pay such premiums on the day named will not constitute a forfeiture of such policy." Judicial Powers. Power to Punish for Con tempt Cannot be Abridged by Legislature. Mo. A Missouri statute prohibits courts from punishing contempts by fine exceeding $50 or imprisonment for more than ten days. In Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. GUdersleeve, 118 S. W. Rep. 86, it appeared that appellant had disregarded an injunction forbidding his traffic in partly used railroad tickets, and had been sentenced to fifteen day's imprisonment for contempt. Appellant relied on the statute. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the court was created by the Constitution and had inherent power to punish for contempt. Allowing the legislature to regulate this power would be permitting the legislative body to exercise functions properly belonging to the judicial. But three judges dissented. Monopolies. Illegal Combination to Raise Fire Insurance Rates.— Ultra Vires. N. J. Some New Jersey lawyers are saying that a recent decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, in declaring the Newark Fire Insurance Exchange a combination in restraint of trade, will have a far-reaching effect in the fight on other trusts of a similar character. The decision of the Court, written by Justice Garrison, and handed down June 15