Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/748

 The Green Bag

714

might be well to make marriages void

able on the ground of permanent insan ity, at the election of those who wish to .be released from the bond, without

forbidding continuance of the marriage relation to such as do not desire sep

aration. In some of our states insanity is

corporation organized under an act to incorporate telegraph companies might proceed to condemn lands for a telephone line although telephones are not men

tioned in the statute. Certainly there is no absurdity in holding that a tele

an absolute ground for divorce, in others there is considerable opposition to the

phone may for some intents and pur poses be practically equivalent to a. telephone, and the dictum of the court

proposal. But if marriages are to be voidable for consanguinity between the

for the doctrine that black is white, or

forbidden degrees, for impotence, or for insanity existing at the time of marriage and unknown to the other party, as is

is hardly to be understood as authority vice verse.l A JUROR’S DEFINITION

recommended by the Committee on

X-GOVERNOR HUGHES of New

Marriage and Divorce of the Commis sioners on Uniform State Laws, per manent insanity arising after marriage would seem to be an analogous ground for divorce, and one which should be

York, the new member of the Supreme Court of the United States,

wise really relate to the competency of

recalls an incident happening when he was a law-clerk in the office of Chamber lain, Carter & Hornblower. A man was being examined by one of the ﬁrm with reference to his quali ﬁcations as a juror in an important

the parties to fulﬁll the marriage relation.

case, involving a considerable sum of

recognized by the law not less than those other grounds, all of which like

money. A TELEPHONE IS A TELEGRAPH

IUDGES perhaps fall into the mis take occasionally of employing a

somewhat comical inaccuracy of lan guage,

which,

however,

meaning absolutely clear.

leaves

their

One such in

stance has been brought to our attention by a correspondent, who writes :— The Court of Appeals of New York has solemnly determined that a "telephone is a telegraph in all essential particulars." 199 N. Y. 135. This is presumably founded on the famous decision of the railway conductor that "cats is dogs and rabbits is dogs, but turtles is insects and travels free."

What the Court actually said was this: “The business of a telephone company,

in its broader aspects at least, is legally indistinguishable from that of a tele graph company, the telephone being a telegraph in all essential particulars"; and it went on to cite a decision in New jersey which was to the effect that a

“You understand," said the lawyer, "what is meant by a preponderance of evidence?" “Yes, sir,” replied the other, promptly.

“Let me have your idea of it." “I understand it, I tell you." “Well, what is it?" “Why, anybody can understand that." “I would like to have your deﬁnition of it." “I know what it is," replied the man, hotly. “When I tell you I know what a thing is, I know it. That's all there is about that." "Well, what was the question I asked you?” “You ought to know what that was. If you've forgot your own questions, don't try to get me to remember them

for you!" lSee Central N. Y. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ave-rill, 92 N. E. 206, 208.