General Rule No. 1 of District Court for Southern District
of Florida, should be liberally construed so as to keep court
open from beginning of one statutory term to beginning
of next; and an adjournment made pursuant to that rule
does not bring term to end. Id.
See Appeal and Error; Jurisdiction; Practice and Pro-
cedure.
CRIMINAL CODE:
For sections construed, see Congress.
Legislative power may not declare one guilty, or presump-
tively guilty, of a crime. McFarland v. American Sugar Co. 79
Attempt by Congress to make possession of article produced
in any of the States a crime would raise gravest question of
power.
United States v. Jin Fuey Moy.
While penal provision not to be enlarged by interpretation,
it must not be so narrowed as to fail to give full effect to its
plain terms, as made manifest by its text and context.
Lamar v. United States ...
Proper and reasonable construction of criminal statute
must not be refused for fear of delay in prosecution of of-
fenders. United States v. Lombardo.....
Where in criminal prosecution there is proof of criminality,
it is not error to refuse an instruction to acquit and to sub-
mit case to jury. Lamar v. United States..
Sec. 32, Penal Code, prohibits and punishes the false assum-
ing, with intent to defraud, to be an officer or employee of
the United States; and also the doing in the falsely assumed
character of any overt act to carry out the fraudulent intent,
whether it would have been legally authorized had the as-
sumed capacity existed or not. Id.
A member of the House of Representatives is an officer of
the United States within the meaning of § 32, Penal Code.
Id.
Indictment held to charge fraudulent intent under § 32,
Penal Code, and to be sufficient under § 1025, Rev. Stat. Id.
Court will not, in order to accommodate venue of particular
offense, introduce confusion into the law. United States v.
Lombardo....
Nature and jurisdiction of offense under § 6, White Slave
Traffic Act. See United States v. Lombardo..
CRIMINAL LAW-Continued.
What constitutes offense under $ 215, Crim. Code. See
United States v. New South Farm..
Section 316, Penal Code, does not embrace offense of adul-
tery as between Indians on reservation. United States v.
Quiver...
Under §§ 16, 20, Enabling Act, and sched. 28, constitution
of Oklahoma, State took place of United States in prosecu-
tions for adultery, neither party being Indian, commenced
in Indian Territory, and all essential parts of prosecution,
including bail bond, passed to State with power of enforce-
ment. Southern Surety Co. v. Oklahoma . . ..
Quare, whether Congress can deal with crime of adultery
committed by tribal Indians within State. Id.
Adultery is punishable offense only when common or stat-
ute law so makes it, and where punishable, is cognizable
only in courts of State. Id.
Where court explicitly enjoins jury that there must be proxi-
mate and causal relation between damages and negligence
and refers to amount stated in declaration as limitation on
amount of award, and there is no misunderstanding as to
the purpose of such reference, there is no error. Chesapeake
& Ohio Ry. v. Carnahan .
When evidence shows that there will be future effects of in-
jury, instruction justifying their inclusion in award of dam-
ages not error. Id.
Measure and apportionment under Employers' Liability
Act. See Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly .....
Quare as to liability of United States to owner of tract of
land part of which taken for erection of dike in navigable
river. United States v. Archer...
DECREES. See Judgments and Decrees.
DELIVERY. See Interstate Commerce.
DEMURRAGE. See Interstate Commerce.
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS. See Aliens.
DEPOSITIONS. See Evidence; Extradition.
DISTRICT COURTS. See Jurisdiction.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
Rights and duties and status of Terminal Taxicab Com-
pany. See Common Carrier.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See Constitutional Law, VI.
ELECTRIC RAILWAYS. See Safety Appliance Act.
ELECTION. See Appeal and Error.
See Condemnation of Land.
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT:
Scope: Rights and obligations under Act depend upon it,
and applicable principles of common law as interpreted and
applied in Federal courts. Southern Railway v. Gray....
In action by representatives of employee for his death, from
negligence of interstate carrier by rail, defendants are en-
titled to insist upon applicable Federal law as exclusive
measure of liability, whether plaintiff presents case under
that or state law. Osborne v. Gray....
Who within: Act applicable only where injured employee
engaged in interstate commerce at time of injury. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. R. v. Harrington...
To bring a case under Act test is whether employee at time
of injury was engaged in interstate transportation, or in
work so closely related thereto as to be practically a part
thereof.
In absence of evidence showing that employee was engaged
in interstate commerce, court cannot supply deficiency by
taking judicial notice of fact. Osborne v. Gray . .
One engaged in removing coal from storage tracks to coal
chutes is not engaged in interstate commerce, even though
coal previously had been brought from another State and
was to be used by locomotives in interstate hauls. Chicago,
B. & Q. R. R. v. Harrington.
Defenses: Where contributory negligence of injured em-
ployee and defendant's violation of Safety Appliance Act
concurrent proximate causes, former must be disregarded.
Spokane & I. E. R. R. Co. v. Campbell.
Even if injury resulted from improper management of a de-
fective appliance covered by Safety Appliance Act, such
misconduct would only amount to contributory negligence
excluded from consideration. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v.
Wagner..
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT-Continued.
In saving defense of assumption of risk, Act places co-
employee's negligence, where it is the ground of the action,
in same relation as employer's own negligence would stand
to question whether plaintiff is to be deemed to have as-
sumed the risk. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. De Atley...... 310
In trial under Act defendant is denied Federal right if de-
nied fair opportunity to show negligence attributable to
employee in diminution of damages; and, in absence of set-
tled rule of practice, such evidence cannot be excluded be-
cause tendered without notice that it is restricted to diminu-
tion of damages. Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Jones..... 181
Assumption of risk: Under § 4, assumption of risk as a de-
fense is abolished only where the negligence of the carrier
is in violation of some statute enacted for safety of employ-
ees: in other cases it is retained. Jacobs v. Southern Ry.... 229
Baugham v. New York, P. & N. R. R..
237
Danger to brakeman at work in switching at one end of
"manifest" train, arising from switching operations by
another crew at the other end, is not an ordinary risk, and,
in absence of notice or knowledge, is not an assumed one.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Proffitt...
An experienced employee knowing material conditions and
presence of pile of cinders, who attempts to board moving
engine with vessel of water in his hand, considered as appre-
ciating danger and assuming risk, even if employer were
negligent in allowing cinders to remain. Jacobs v. Southern
Ry..
Negligence of employer: Negligence by employer is essential
to recovery, and in absence of evidence to show why brake-
man, sent to guard train, should go to sleep on track within
short distance of curve, negligence not imputed to engineer
of train for not stopping before striking him. Southern
Railway v. Gray....
Employers' Liability and Safety Appliance Acts are in pari
materia, and where former refers to any defect or insuffi-
ciency, due to employer's negligence, in its appliances, it is
legislative intent to treat violation of latter act as negligence
per se. San Antonio & A. P. Ry. v. Wagner
Act abrogated common-law fellow servant rule by placing
negligence of co-employee upon same basis as negligence of
employer. Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. De Atley...
Recovery under: Damages should be equivalent to compen-
sation for deprivation of reasonable expectation of pecun-
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT-Continued.
iary benefits that would have resulted from continued life
of employee. Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly...
In estimating amount of damages recoverable, interest
bearing capacity of present award must be considered, and
whole loss sustained by beneficiaries during period that bene-
fits cover cannot be included in verdict without rebate or
discount. Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly..
Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Gainey.
Computation, rate of interest, periods of rest, etc., in de-
termining award under Act, are matters determined by law
of forum; but proper measure of damages in cases arising un-
der a Federal statute must be settled according to principles
administered in Federal courts. Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly 485
Ascertained future benefits to be derived from a sum of
money must be discounted from the amount of a present
award. Ches. & Ohio Ry. v. Kelly.
While Act does not require damages to be apportioned
among beneficiaries; quare, whether such apportionment is
prohibited. Id.
A judgment in suit under Act set aside for error of instruc-
tion as to recovery by state appellate court cannot be rein-
stated by this court on writ of error to state appellate court
after judgment for lesser amount on second trial has been
affirmed by that court. Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Stewart 261
Practice and procedure: That after the close of testimony
plaintiff suing under both Act and Safety Appliance Act
withdrew his claim under latter, held not to amount to with-
drawal of testimony in regard to defective condition of ap-
pliances entitling defendant to directed verdict on ground
of assumption of risk. St. L. & San F. R. R. v. Brown... 223
Verdict in state court in action under Act, which is not
unanimous, but which is legal under laws of State, is not ille-
gal under Seventh Amendment. Minneapolis & St. Louis
R. R. v. Bombolis...
St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Brown....
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Carnahan
Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Stewart.
That trial court in action under Act, in instructing jury as
to reduction of damages for contributory negligence, failed
to define the word proportion, held not error. St. Louis &
San Francisco R. R. v. Brown...
Quare, whether under Conformity Act trial court is re-
quired to adhere to state practice governing effect of general
|