Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/499

 470

The Green Bag

often makes the coward mistake his timidity for that conscience which is worthy of dis tinction." Contempt. Stale Legislature Cannot Limit Discretion of Judiciary—Punishment for Con tempt Not Subject to Regulation. Mo. In a recent Missouri case the Supreme Court, by a vote of four judges against three dissenting, held an act of the legislature for bidding a constitutional court (namely a court established by the constitution rather than by statute) to impose a fine in any case of contempt in excess of $50, or to inflict im prisonment for more than ten days, to violate the constitution of that state. The dis senting judges expressed the opinion that constitutional courts could not be shorn of their inherent right to punish for contempt by the legislative branch of the government, but insisted that the legislature might make reasonable rules regulating the punishment in contempt cases, so long as such regulation does not render the contempt jurisdiction ineffectual. (See editorial in New York Sun, July 20, 1909.) Corporations. Right of Cumulative Voting Under New York Statute— Preferred Stock holders May be Deprived of Power to Vote— Public Policy. N. Y. The relators in Stewart Browne v. Samuel S. Koenig (reported in New York Law Journal July 19, 1909), which was decided last July by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, first department, had been denied a certificate of incorporation by the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court of New York County issued a peremptory writ of mandamus, from which the defendant as Secretary of State appealed. The Court de nied the appeal, for reasons about to be stated. The Secretary of State had refused the certificate because of the provision that the stock should be divided into one-half preferred and one-half common, the preferred to have the right to vote only upon certain matters relating to corporate management, and being given no right to vote for directors of the corporation. The Court, per Mr. Justice Houghton, said :— "Unless expressly forbidden by statute the articles of incorporation may divide the stock into common and preferred, and may provide that the preferred stockholders shall be de prived of voting power in consideration of the preferences over the common stock which are

given them. Such a provision is but an arrangement between two classes of stock holders which does not concern the public and does not violate any rule of the common law or any rule of public policy. . . . "In view of the fact that it is perfectly law ful for different classes of stockholders to agree amongst themselves, through the certifi cate of incorporation, that one class shall have no vote upon all or certain questions relating to the management of the corpora tion, and that such an agreement does not contravene public policy or affect the public, we are of the opinion that the Legislature did not intend to compel every class of stock holders to hold the right to vote, or to pro hibit the formation of a corporation which deprived the preferred stockholders of voting power." Damages. Disfigurement as Basis of Mental Suffering. U. S. From a charge allowing the jury to con sider on the subject of damages the humilia tion resulting from the loss of an eye, an appeal is taken in United States Express Co. v. Wahl, 168 Fed. Rep. 848. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, remarking that there was a contrariety of decisions involving this point, adopted the decision of the Supreme Court in McDermott v. Severe, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 709, and allowed a recovery. Where mental suffering producing embar rassment, shame or mortification as the result of the absence of a facial constituent is a direct and necessary consequence of the physical injury its submission to the jury is proper. Defamation. See Privacy. Due Process of Law. Delegation of Judicial Power to Administrative Officials— Rights of Aliens. U. S. The United States Supreme Court, in Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., v. Nevada N. Stranahan, decided June 1 (L. ed. adv. sheets Oct. term 1908, p. 671), followed its decisions in U. S. v. Ju Toy (198 U. S. 253, 49 L. ed. 1040, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644), and in U. S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams (194 U. S. 279, 48 L. ed. 979, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 719), and sustained the validity of the act (32 Stat, at L. 1213, c. 1012) providing for the exclu sion of aliens affected with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, on penalty of a heavy fine imposed on persons bringing in such aliens, the enforcement of the law being confided to administrative officials:—