Recent Decisions. LIABILITIES FOR TAXES UNDER LEASE. Plaintiff rented to defendant premises for the term of ten years from April 1st, 1871, defendant agreeing to pay the taxes and keep the premises in repair. In 1875 the plaintiff executed an instrument declaring that the AGENCY.--Parties in dealing with an assumed agent are bound to see and be assured that he is the agent that he represents himself to be, and that he is acting within | lease was "cancelled and surrendered as of the scope of his powers. If a father author- the first of April, 1875," and took possession izes his son to act as his agent in respect to of the premises. The taxes for four years his notes on another, then to the extent of were unpaid and the plaintiff was compelled the authority conferred, the acts and state- to pay them, and to expend considerable monments of the son while performing the busi-ey for repairs. Held that the surrender and uess of the agency will be binding. But cancellation of the lease, did not release the authority in a son to keep a party's books and accounts, and to figure the interest due on notes, does not show authority in the son to collect and settle such notes and accounts. ---Reynolds vs. Ferree, Sup. Ct. LIABILITY OF A NOTARY PUBLIC.-The Snpreme Court of Michigan holds that a notary public is liable, on his bond for misfeasance, in knowingly certifying the acknowledgement of a grantor who has not appeared before him, or certifying to an ackuowledgement without reading it. We would call upon our notaries public to observe this decision in their practice. There are many of these cases, and notaries public are not the only officers who knowingly late the law in this respect. Let a few of them be sued, and have the law dealt out to them as it is in Michigan and they will attend to their official duties more faithfully in the future than they have in the past.[Curtis vs. Colby, Sup. Court, Michigan.] defendant from the liability for the taxes he shotld have paid, and the repairs he should have made during its continuance, and that plaintiff could recover therefor. [Roe vs. Conway, N. Y. Court of Appeals. LIABILITY OF BAMK DIRECTORS.-The directors of a moneyed institution are responsible to it at law in an action on the case for improperly obtaining and disposing of the funds or property of the company. They are liable, however, only individually and severally, and not jointly, as directors, unless the act complained of be done by a majority of the board of directors, when, by the act of incorporatin, a majority only is competent to transact the vio-business of the company, and, generally, when there has been waste or misapplication of the corporate funds by the officers, a suit in equity, in the name of the corporation, will lie to compel them to account for such waste, the directors being regarded as trustees of the stockholders.--McKenna vs. Smith, Circuit Ct., Cook county, Illinois. INDORSEMENT.-A note has been given by M to plaintiffs in payment of goods sold to him by them. The plaintiffs were payees of the note. They claimed that the purchase was fraudulent and threatened to replevin the goods, and in order to prevent that, M induced the defendant to indorse the note to secure the plaintiffs. Held that there was good consideration for defendant's indorsement, though made after the execution of the note, and that defendant was reliable, as in dorser to plaintiffs.-Jaffrey vs. Brown, Ct. of Appeals, N. Y. TOWN BONDS.-A verdict of $20,650 in fa. in the United States Circuit Court, at Tren. vor of John M. Ramsdell was lately rendered Essex County. The suit was brought to reton, N. J.,against the township of Montclair. cover $18,000 with interest on certain bonds issued by the township to aid in the buliding of the Montclair and Greenwood Lake Railroad. The suit was brought as a test case, there being seven other suits against the township of a similar nature. Vol. II.—No. 15.] SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 1879. Legal Notes. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS-The ten (10) decisions reported in this issue comprise and complete every decision of our Supreme Court rendered since the meeting of the July term of 1878, in San Francisco-to this date. LAW OF LIBEL.-We give in this number a part of the very able and valuable paper on the "Law of Libel" from the pen of Henry E. Highton Esq. of this City :-the balance will appear next week. MINING CLAIMS ON SCHOOL LANDS.-We Publish in this number a very valuable and interesting article from our veteran Land Lawyer Jas. F. Stewart,, communicated to the Alta, which is quite applicable to the "Bodie" qustion as well as other titles on School Lands-hence will be of quite general interest. LAND APPLICATION DENIED--On the 9th instant, the Secretary of the Interior, affirm the action of the commissioner of the General Land Office in denying the application of Peter D. Jorup, to enter a tract of land in the Olympia District, Washington Territory. LAND SURVEY CONFIRMED-The Secretary has also affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office in the matter of the survey of the Oalifornia rancho Agua Caliente, Sonoma county. SUNDAY SUBSCRIPTIONS—The Indiana Supreme Court has decided, in the suit of a church against a member, that subscriptions made on Sunday cannot be collected by law. HASTINGS LAW COLLEGE.-The second term of Hastings Law College opened at 4 o'clock P. M. of January 8th, at Pioneer Hall. [Whole No. 67. SUPREME COURT CLAENDAR IN PAMPHLET FORM-The calendar for the January term of the Supreme Court, which commences next Monday, has been issued by the Court Clerk, D. B. Woolf, in pamphlet form, for distribution. It embraces 63 pages, and is gotten up in a complete form, with an index alphabetically arranged, and alternate blank pages for memoranda. The Polygamy Law Decision. WASHINGTON, January 6th.-A decision was ren dered this afternoon by the United States Su preme Court in the case of George Reynolds against the United States, brought here by appeal from the Supreme Court of Utah. The case involves the whole question of polygamy in Ter ritories, and the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for its suppression. Reynolds was indicted by a Grand Jury for contracting a bigamous marriage. He was tried in the Third Jualclal Court of Utah and found guilty. He apfinally to this Court, which now affirms the judgment of the lower tribunals, and decides that Congress had power to pass laws prohibiting polygamous marriages in Utah, and that such laws are constitutional. pealed to the Supreme Court of the ferritory, and WASHINGTON, January 6th.-With reference to the decision of the Utah polygamy case to-day, it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court were unanimous on the main question involved, namely, as to the constitutionality of the law of Congress prohibiting so-called plural mar riages, etc. The Chief Justice, speaking for the entire Court, declared that this law was not in conflict with the constituțional guarantee of re1ligious freedom, and showed that the right of Congress to legislate for the protection of the fundamental principles of society cannot be abridged by the Mormon claim of religious belief any more than it could by the claim of certain other religious beliefs that human sacrifices are necessary, or that widows must be burned with the bodies of their dead husbands. There was some slight difference of opinion as to the admissibility of the testimony of one witness given on the former trial in Utab, but the two or three Justices who doubted its admissibility concurred with their associates in all oteer points of the case; and there is absolutely nothing left in the whole matter for judicial determination or con troversy. The case was tried May 28, 1878, and defendant Supreme Court of California found guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree, whereupon the court sentenced him to the State Prison for the term of three years. Defendant moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the Court erred in its decision of questions of law arising during the trial, in permitting evidence of property found on other persons than defendant, to be introduced on the trial to his prejudice, permitting evidence as to return of property with which defendant had nothing to do, in permitting certain tags to be used in evidence, to identify property to defendants prejudice, that the verdict of the jury was contrary to Appeal from the County Court of Santa Barbara law, in finding defendant guilty of burglary in County. F. J. McGuire, County Judge. FELONY-EMBEZZLEMENT OF PUBLIC MONEYS. STATEMENT OF CASE. Defendant was elected Assessor of the City of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara county, April 3, 1876, and entered upon the duties of the office, among which were the receipt and transfer of the public moneys belonging to said Municipal Corporation, which it is charged in the indictment found against him, by the Grand Jury of said county, March 12, 1878, he "wilfully and feloniously and without authority of law appropriated to his own use." the first degree, and in failing to find defendant not guilty. This motion being overruled, defendant appealed. D. J. Murphy, District Attorney, for plaintiff and respondent. W. S. McPheeters and P. B. Hood, attorneys for defendant and appellant. "Judgment and order affirmed for want of ap pearance on the part of prisoner." Unwritten Decision. VS. Appellant. No. 16,358. Defendant demurred to the indictment alleging its non-conformity to the requirements of sections EMANUEL BARGION, Defendant and 950, 951 and 952 of the Penal Code, and for other causes, which demurrer the Court sustained, or- Appeal from San Joaquin County Court, dering the discharge of defendant and the release W. S. BUCKLEY, County Judge. of his bondsmen. From this decision the District Attorney of Santa Barbara county, on behalf of the State, instituted this appeal. Thomas McNulta, District Attorney Santa Barbara county, attorney for plaintiff and appellant. A. Campbell, C. Gray, and Glassell, Chapman & Smiths, attorneys for defendant and respondent. "Judgment affirmed." ROBBERY. STATEMENT OF CASE. The Defendant in this case was indicted, by the Grand Jury of San Joaquin County, November 21, 1878, along with other defendants, for robbery in taking from one James Burnett the sum of $3, upon trial of which offense, he was found guilty. Defendant's counsel moved for a new trial upon the grounds of error in law, in the decisions of the court, and the verdict of the jury, as being against both law and evidence. The court, on February 23, 1873, denied the motion, from which defendant appealed. J. A. Hosmer, Disirict Attorney San Joaquin county, attorney for plaintiff and respondent. J. H. Budd & Sons, attorneys for defendant and appellant. Judgment and order affirmed." E. M. PAUL, County Judge. GRAND LARCENY. STATEMENT OF CASE. The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted in the County of Lake, of the crime of grand larceny, sentenced to a term of three years and six months in the State Prison, from June 3, 1878-the date of said sentence. Defendant appealed on the ground of the overruling the objection of the counsel of defendant to the indict ment, because the same was not signed by the District Attorney in person-the court holding that after arraignment and pleading not guilty of The prisoner, counsel's objection was made too t at e. A. M. Hanson, District Attorney of Lake county, attorney for plaintiff and respondent. S. K. Welch and R. McGarvey, attorneys for defendant and appellant. “Judgment affirmed." Defendant was indicted on the 20th of August, 1878, by the Grand Jury of San Benito county for grand larceny-stealing a horse of the value of $50 belonging to one Jose Vicelia. Upon trial of the case at Hollister, September 19, 1878, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty as for a new trial on the ground that the Court mischarged in the indictment. Defendant's motion directed the jury in matters of law, erred in decisions of questsons of law, erred in resubmiting the charge against defendant to another grand jury, and for other causes, being denied, and defendant being sentenced by the Court to the term of one year and a half in the State Prison the appeal was taken. J. J. May, District Attorney San Benito county, attorney for plaintiff and respondent. R. H. Brotherton, attorney for defendant and appellant. "Judgment and order affirmed, for want of appearance on the part of prisoner. Defendant was indicted on the 20th of August, 1878, by the Grand Jury of San Benito county for grand larceny, the stealing, on July 4, 1878, of a watch and chain, value $25, and twenty dollars in money, the property of one John Lamont. The defendant was, upon a trial of the case on the 24th of August, 1878, found guilty, and a motion for a new trial being denied by the court defendant appealed. J. J. May, District Attorney San Benito county, attorney for plaintiff and respondent. B. B. McCroskey, attorney for defendant and appellant. "Judgment and order affirmed for want of appearance on the part of the prisoner." County. WILLIAM B. JOHNSON, Deft and Appt. ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. STATEMENT OF CASE. Defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Humboldt County, on the 29th of August, 1878, for an assault with a deadly weapon, upon one James Hoaglan, with intent to commit murder, for which offence he was, on August 28, 1878, tried, convicted, and afterwards sentenced to the State Prison for the term of one year. Defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence which went to show that the defendant was guilty only of the crime of simple battery; that the weapon used-a stick three feet and one inch long-was not a deadly weapon, in the meaning of section 245, of the Penal Code. A fatal variance between the allegations in the indictment, and the proof is charged, and among various other matters, that the Court erred in permitting the District Attorney, under defendant's objections, to exhort the jury as follows, to wit: "That it was their duty to guard the rights of half-breeds more zealously than the rights of other citizens; that because the prosecuting witness was a half-breed, and idiotic, it was their duty to convict the defendant for the purpose of making Appeal from the County Court of San Benito an example of him, and for the purpose of show J. J. HARRIS, County Judge. GRAND LARCENY. STATEMENT OF CASE. ing to the people of Humboldt county, and to the world at large, the social standing of the Indian race, as received by a jury of its citizens, and they should convict the defendant for the purpose ACTION FOR DAMAGES. STATEMENT OF CASE. Plaintiff brought suit against John Wasley, County Clerk of San Joaquin County, to recover damages for refusing to issue an execution, arising out of the action of Snow vs. Snow, for divorce, in which the court made an order that the defendant in that case pay to plaintiff, $50 per month for her support, which order has never been revoked or modified. It is alleged that said Snow paid the amount specified for the term of four (4) months, since which time he has neglected and failed to comply with the order of the court to make such payment. Plaintiff further charges that by her attornies, she requested the defendant herein, to issue an execution against the property of Benjamin Snow, under said order of court, tendering to defendant his fee therefor, and that said defendant, Clerk of the Court of San Joaquin County, refused to issue said execution, for which plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $950, gold coin, with legal interest on said sums of $50, from the time the same fell due. Unwritten Decision. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VS. CHARLES E. WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. No. 10,356. Appeal from the County Court of Shasta County. BURGLARY. STATEMENT OF CASE. Defendant was indicted on January 24, 1878, by the Grand Jury of Shasta county, charged with entering the "grainery building of William Alberson with the intent then and there to commit the crime of larceny by taking and stealing therefrom two sacks of wheat, then and there being the property and chattels of him the said Wm. Alberson." Upon a trial of this case the jury found a verdict of guilty of burglary in the first degree and sentenced by the court to the State Prison for one year, whereupon defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the same was contrary to law, and the evidence, mis-direction of the court to the jury in matters of law, error in decision of questions of law arising during the trial, misconduct of the jury-" by which a fair and due consideration of the case was prevented, and that the verdict was decided by other means than a fair expression of opinoin on the part of all the jurors:--in this, that William Kem, one of the trial jurors in said cause, was sick, intoxicated, and incompetent after the said cause was submitted to the jury," and for divers and sundry other reasons. Defendant, in his answer, admits that on February 8, 1876, an order was made by the court in a certain action for divorce pending, in which plaintiff, in this case, was plaintiff, and Benjamin Snow, defendant, that said Snow pay to plaintiff the sum of $50 per month alimony pendente lite, and also $100 attorney's fee. On June 15, 1876, a judgment was rendered by the court in said action, of Snow vs. Snow, by which it was decreed "that the bill of plaintiff be, and it is hereby dismissed." Defendant further sets up that according to information and belief, said Snow paid alimony for four months, until the rendition of said judgment, and that there was nothing due plain- THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff“ The motion for a new trial being denied, defendant took an appeal. Clay W. Taylor, District Attorney of Shasta county, attorney for plaintiff and respondent. J. Cadburne and A. R. Andrews, attorneys for defendant and appellant. tiff in said action, since the rendition of the aforesaid judgment. The court, upon hearing the argument of coun "Judgment and order affirmed." Unwritten becision. and Appellant, VS. GEO. R. BUTLER, I. W. HELLMAN, No 6219. |