Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/744

 The Green Bag

710

any other or earlier notice of loss than that involved in the commencement of this action." Moreover, under the mortgagee clause, the insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee was not to be invalidated by any act or neglect of the assured mortgagor or

what to the same effect was the decision of the Appellate Division in Tyson v. Tyson,

owner.

the state.

Accordingly,

the

Court

said,

"it

was not therefore necessary to allege that he [the mortgagee] or the mortgagors had given such proofs of loss or to set up an ex press waiver thereof by the insurer." The Court cites the conﬂicting decisions of other jurisdictions and states that the question has not previously arisen in New York. There is a very strong dissenting opinion which goes over the authorities and argu ments against the majority holding quite fully. Juries. Reversal on Technicalities-jurors May Separate and Read Newspapers. U. S. A man's constitutional rights are not necessarily violated by a jury which is trying him on a charge of murder being allowed to separate and to read newspapers during the trial, was the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States Oct. 31, in Holt v. U. S. The Court also held similarly in regard to the refusal of a judge to send a jury out of the court room during arguments on the admis sion of evidence. Furthermore, the Court laid down the rule that the act of requiring the accused to put on a coat, alleged to have been worn when the crime charged was committed, did not amount to "requiring a prisoner to testify against himself." These points were made in the decision of the Court in refusing to interfere with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the federal circuit court of western Washington. In announcing the opinion of the Court, Mr. Justice Holmes said that if the mere opportunity for prejudice and corruption was to raise a presumption that they exist, it would be hard to maintain jury trial under the conditions of the present day. Marriage and Divorce. Michigan Divorce Invalid in New York—5ervice by Publication on Defendant Outside the State. N. Y. In Catlin v. Catlin, noted in this depart

ment last month (22 Green Bag 655), the New York Supreme Court held a Nevada divorce void for want of jurisdiction. Some

decided

Nov.

3,

wherein

the

New

York

Justices held that a Michigan divorce was invalid in which the defendant had been served by publication, during absence from South Dakota Divorce Invalid in District of Columbia-No jurisdiction over Dc fendant Wife Outside the State. D. C. A similar case arose in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court of the District

holding a South Dakota divorce invalid. The divorce which Judge Stafford refused to recognize was obtained by Milton E. Davis who in April, 1907, went to South Dakota, in December got his divorce, and

three weeks later was married again. Judge Stafford held that inasmuch as Davis had "deserted his wife and left this jurisdiction,

it follows that the court of South Dakota has jurisdiction over her and no right to bind her by its decree." Mortgages.

See Insurance.

Orinoco Claims Oase. Award of Damages Quashed Because Arbitrator Exceeded Powers under Protocol between United States and Venezuela. Hague Court. The Orinoco Steamship Company, a New Jersey corporation, was granted certain exclusive privileges by the government of Venezuela, but the agreement was subse quently repudiated by President Castro. The steamship company instituted an action for $1,400,000 damages.

The case was eventually submitted to Dr. Charles Barge, who awarded the company $28,700. The company appealed to the American government, which refused to accept the decision on the ground that it was contrary to the principles of international law. After prolonged negotiations it was agreed to submit the matter to the Hague Perma nent Court of Arbitration. The Court rendered a decision Oct. 25 holding the Barge award null on four points, and awarding the American company $92,672 damages, with interest and costs. The decision is important in that it recog nizes the contention of the American Govern ment that the exceeding of powers and essential error may be grounds for holding void an international award. The Court

allowed

the

United

States