Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

sary to try them separately. The solicitor general' 1 affirmed with costs-James T. Scarff, respondent, v. Somers, conducted the prosecution with a modera B. F. Metcalf and another, appellants.-Judgment tion aud humanity of which his predecessors had left affirmed with costs-Martin Chornelius, respondent, him no example. 'I did never think,' he said, 'that | v. David C. Holton and another, appellants.- Judgit was the part of any who were of counsel for the ment affirmed with costs-William O. Douglass, reking in cases of this nature to aggravate the crime of spondent, v. Edwin B. Low, as general guardian of Wil. the prisoners, or to put false colors on the evidence.' liam 0. Douglass, appellant.- Judgment, affirmed Holt's conduct was faultless. I would not mislead with costs-Patrick Walsh, respondent, v. Mayor, etc., the jury, I'll assure you,' said Holt to Preston, 'nor of Brooklyn).-Orders affirmed with costs, Bezalul H. do you any manner of injury in the world.' .What. Dupignæ, appellant, v. Margaretta Dupiguæ and othever my fate may be,' said Ashton, “I canuot butown ers, respondents.---Order of General Term reversed, that I have had a fair trial for my life.'”

and that of Special Term affirmed with costs-Michael It is well to bear in mind that the issue in the Su-L. Hunt, appellant, v. City of Oswego, respondent. preme Court was not between the punishment of the -Order modified by striking out provision for short defendants and their absolute acquittal, but between notice of trial, and as modified affirmed, without costs death and a new trial, and we believe that by reason to either party-Joshua B. Leavitt, respondent, v. of the errors confessed in the decision itself a new | Lewis B. Chase, appellant. Orders reversed and trial should have been allowed. And this is the con- | proceedings dismissed--People, ex rel. Fisk Wallace, viction, we are assured, of men as eminent for legal appellant, v. Thomas C. Abbott and others, trustees, ability and attainments as any of the learned gentle- etc., respondents.--- Appeal dismissed with costamen by whom this decision has been rendered. A Fleming S. Phillips, respondent, v. Germania Mills, lawyer in this city remarked a few days ago: "I be appellant. — Order affirmed with costs--William C. lieve the men are guilty, and ought to be hanged, but Herring, trustee, etc., appellant, v. Mary C. Berrian I am sorry that they did not have a fair trial.” Guilty and others. - Judgment affirmed with costs-Bertha or not, if they “ did not have a fair trial," they should Laubhiem, appellant, v. Die Koninglyk Nederlandath hare another.

Stoomboot Mootschappy, respondent. Plaintiff was a Assuming that the men are guilty, as the evidence | passenger on defendant's steamship, and accidentally indicates that most of them are, we still adhere to the slipped and broke her knee joint. The ship surgeon, conviction expressed in The Index months ago, that | it was charged, treated her so unskilfully that it bethe highest justice and the best interests of society came necessary to submit to amputation after her arwould be promoted by the commutation of their sen rival in New York. Held, in all courts, that defendtence. --The Open Court.

ant is not liable for the injuries and its unfortunate consequences. Judgment affirmed with costsLouis Schneider, respoudent, v. Carl L. Quoobarth,

appellant.- Judgment affirmed with costs-Jobu A. NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS. Kelly, respondent, v. Bridget E. Kearns, appellant

-Appeal dismissed with costs; new trial ordered by MORRILL ON CITY NEGLIGENCE.

the General Term may be had, unless the appellant

shall, at the first General Term held in the Fourth Of the Law and Practice in actions against Municipal Corporations for negligence in the case of highways. By William

Department, procure the order of the reversal to be W. Morrill: New York, S. S. Peloubet, 1887, pp. li, 281.

so amended as to give this court jurisdiction to hear

the appeal, in which event the case is to retain its The original and peculiar merits of Mr. Morrill's

place on the present calendar, and be argued at a time “Competency and Privileges of Witnesses” have been

to be agreed upon by counsel-Isaac R. Pharis, appelpreserved and even enhanced in this clever manual.

lant, v. R. Nelson Gere, respondent.-- Judgment It is delightful to take up a book in which principles

modified by ordering a new trial-People, appellant, are so concisely stated and so logically arranged, and y. George Clement, respondent. This was an appeal the authorities so discriminatingly marsballed. Even

by District Attorney Hull, of Washington county, the typographical arrangement is peculiarly striking from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Third Deand convenient. Mr. Morrill certainly “takes the

partment, reversing the conviction of Clemeuts, the cake "as a manual maker. Although the book is ex-cashier of the broken State Bank of Fort Edward, primarily intended for New York, yet it would be

for perjury for swearing to the correctness of a false almost equally useful elsewhere, because statutes and

official statement of the condition of the bank to State decisions of other States are cited and considered. All

Superintendent Paine, in March, 1884, and ordering things considered, we think we never saw books so the discharge of the prisoner. The General Term useful for handy reference by a brief-maker as Mr.

(Bockes, J., writing the opinion) held that the indictMorrill's. Let him make more.

ment was fatally defective, in uot directly averring that the affidavit was false, instead of couching that

charge in the averment, “he well knowing the same COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.

to be false." This the Court of Appeals holds, is a sufficient charge of the commission of the crime to

sustain a conviction under the Penal Code; but as THE following decisions were handed down Tuesday,

Justice Fish, in the Oyer and Terminer, charged the T Oct. 18, 1887:

jury in substance that they must first ascertain from Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide the evidence whether Clements knowingly and corevent-Reuben H. Farnham, supervisor, etc., appel ruptly made the false affidavit, and that if they found lant, v. Charles B. Benedict, respondent.- Judg that he did, the evidence of previous good character ments of General and Special Terms reversed, and did not avail him. This court holds invariably that case remanded to Special Term to be further consid

evidence of previous gond character always goes to ered, after notice to attorney-general, without costs show probability concerning the commission of the to either party-George W. Johnson v. Henry Spier. crime charged. Consequently they order a pew trial

- Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to of the issues contained in the indictment. The decisabide event-Theresa Lynch, respondent, v. Twelfthion is substantially a victory for the people against National Bank of Jersey City, appellant. — Judgment the bank wreckers.

The Albany Law Journal.

ALBANY, October 29, 1887.

speech-making on the evening in question. That Lingg manufactured bombs of peculiar form and materials, like that which did the work, and distributed them among the socialists on the evening of the murder. That Spies not only made an incen

diary speech on that occasion, but actually handed CURRENT TOPICS.

the bomb to Schnaubelt and lighted it, after which

Schnaubelt threw it. (This last evidence was PERUSAL of the opinion of the Illinois Su

strongly controverted, as was also that of Fieldeu's

| shooting, but there was amply enough to justify preme Court in the anarchists' case ought to

| the finding of direct action as to both.) That convince any lawyer that the defendants had a fair

Neebe was a socialist, stockholder in the newspatrial, as free from error as possible in judicial pro

per, and next to Spies and Schwab, the most active ceedings, and that they are all guilty, and richly

in its management; active in preparing for the deserve extirpation. A more depraved set of scoun

movements counselled, presiding at meetings where drels never infested the earth, and society will be

the use of dynamite against the police was urged, safer for their permanent absence. “Throttle the

distributing incendiary circulars on the night before law or the law will throttle you," said one of them

| the attack in question, his house full of arms and a in his incendiary speeches. So it will, if there is

red flag in it. The whole case shows that the soany justice under the heavens, and any backbone

cialists had been armed, drilled and instructed in in society. "Ruhe" — peace -- was the precon

the manufacture and use of dynamite-bombs for certed word published in their newspaper as the

many months, and that a preconcerted attack on signal for the uprising. Society will get no peace un

the police was fixed for about May 1, 1886. On til it makes a few examples of these socialistic fire

Monday, May 3d, the police broke up a strike riot brands, haters of mankind, spoilers of property, de

and killed one of the strikers, and this precipitated fiers of God and judgment. We recommend to

the attack in question on the next evening, in obeevery lawyer to read Judge Magruder's opinion. A more masterly and convincing one was never ut

dience to the publication of the signal “Ruhe."

The evidence also showed that some of the policetered. It should always stand as a monument to

men were wounded by pistol shots. The evidence his intellectual powers. It is marked also by per

against Parsons and Neebe is only somewhat less fect calmness and impartiality, stating the pros and | cons of the voluminous and sometimes conflicting

direct as to active participancy on the night of the evidence with admirable clearness and absence of

murder; that they counselled such an attack, Par

sons on the scene, and Neebe at other times and bias. The evidence against all the prisoners but

places, there can be no sort of question. two is direct and overwhelming, and as to those

In defer

ence to the doubt about Neebe his punishment is two it is sufficient to justify the finding of the jury.

fixed at imprisonment for fifteen years. We think The prisoners are all of German birth or descent but

every good American citizen ought to read this two, who are respectively English and American.

case, easily accessible in a separate number of the The indictment was for an executed conspiracy to

Northeastern Reporter, published at St. Paul, for murder Policeman Degan. The bomb wbich killed |

twenty-five cents. Then the community will wake him destroyed six other policemen and wounded sixty more. The evidence showed that Spies

up to a realization of what a volcano they have Schwab, Parsons, Engel and Fielden, by numerous

been sleeping on; what a viper this free and hos

pitable land has taken to its hearth. But we are speeches and writings of the most bloodthirsty de

prepared for the usual chorus of sentimental priests scription, counselled the workingmen to arm for a

and whining women begging for pardon or mercy conflict with the police and militia, and that they

for a band of lawless Thugs who would despise (excepting Engel and Fischer) were engaged in

them for their softness and cut their throats for handling bombs and experimenting with dynamite. That Engel and Fischer organized a conspiracy to

their money. The might of Law for Dynamite! throw bombs into the police stations and shoot

say we. down the escaping policemen, as a preliminary to a general attack on capitalists and property. That "Once more unto the breach, dear friends! " Spies continually incited the attack through the The Columbia Law Times, the new organ of Profescolumns of his newspaper, the Arbeiter Zeitung, sor Dwight and his excellent law school, is on our with the co-operation of Schwab, an editorial table in its first number. Its contents are fairly inwriter for his newspaper, and that the two como teresting. An article on “The Cy Pres Doctrine posed and published bloodthirsty circulars, and an- | as affecting the construction of Deeds and Wills”. nounced the time for striking by publishing in the may usefully be read in connection with Mr. Mcnewspaper the agreed signal “ Ruhe" on the eve- Grath's monograph noticed in another column, esning in question. That Fielden, the Englishman, pecially as the writer cites authorities from more delivered an incendiary speech in the Haymarket, States than will be found in Mr. McGrath's book. the scene of the conflict, on the evening in ques- | The verses, “A Woman having a Settlement," etc., tion, and fired several shots at the police. That quoted in this number, are rather mouldy, but if to Parsons, the American, played a similar part as to be quoted, why 'omit the chorus of “Puisne

VOL. 36 - No. 18.

Judges?Our young friends ought to read their stood by in silence and availed itself of the benefit; proof more carefully --" Dwavies on Statutes" is and this is so, although the district had voted to simply awful, and so is “Harting v. People." By | have the teacher “board arround.”. some oversight a puff of Professor Langdell's method of teaching at Harvard has crept in. The third number of the Harvard Law Revier is also at

NOTES OF CASES. hand. Professor Langdell continues his “Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction;" there is an article

IN Rommel v. Schambacher, Pennsylvania Supreme on “ Trusts,” and “Recent Cases” are admirably

1 Court, October 10, 1887, a novel case was deselected and reported.

cided. Gordon, J., said: “From the evidence in this case we gather the following facts: On the

evening of the 9th of August, 1884, the plainWe have received a copy of a bill to be proposed tiff, William Rommel, a minor, entered the tavern to Congress for the regulation of the practice in ex- of the defendant, Jacob Schambacher, and there tradition cases between the States, and providing a found one Edward Flanagan. They both became uniform system. This is in pursuance of the action intoxicated on liquor furnished them by Schamof the conference of governors last summer. The bacher. Whilst the plaintiff was standing on the bill contains eleven sections, and forms of demand, outside of the bar, engaged in conversation with appointment of agent to receive the fugitive, war- the defendant, who was in the inside thereof, rant, and indorsement on appointment. It denounces Flanagan pinned a piece of paper to Rommel's back severe penalties against any one who shall compel, and set it on fire. The consequence was that Romor persuade any fugitive to return except as herein | mel's clothes were soon in flames, and before they provided, and prohibits arrest on other charges could be extinguished he was very badly injured. until the lapse of a reasonable time for his return He brought the present suit to recover damages whence he came. It also provides against the use from the defendant for the injury thus sustained. of these proceedings for the mere collection of The court below adjudged the facts as stated above debts. The bill seems to us very well considered - to be insufficient to sustain the plaintiff's case, and clear, simple and comprehensive. The adoption of directed a nonsuit. In this we think it made a this or of something similar will effectuate and sim mistake. There is no doubt that the defendant, plify such proceedings, and greatly promote justice. from the position he occupied, had a full view of

the room outside of the bar, and did see, or might

have seen, all that was going on in it. If, in fact, A lady — we suppose — writes us that she has a | he did see Flanagan setting fire to the plaintiff, and wondrously cheap and effective process for gold did not interfere to protect his guest from so flaand silver plating, by which she has plated all the grant an outrage, his responsibility for the conseneighbors' things, and in nineteen days has cleared quences is undoubted. If, on the other hand, he $97.65 — more than a great many lawyers could was guilty of making Flanagan drunk, or if he earn in the same time by plating their brass. Her came there drunk, and Schambacher knew that brother, working two days longer, cleared $90.50, fact, he was bound to see that he did no injury to but then he plated a set of band horns. She con- | his customers. All this is a plain matter of comtinues: “I am making a geographical crazy quilt, | mon law and good sense, and does not depend on and desire to have as many different places as pos

the act of 1854, or any other statute. Where one sible represented. So to any of your readers who enters a saloon or tavern, opened for the entertainwill send me a piece of silk or satin I will send ment of the public, the proprietor is bound to see complete directions for making a plater like mine that he is properly protected from the assaults or that will plate gold or silver.” The cost of said insults, as well as of those who are in his employ, plater is only $4.00. This lady hopes we will print as of the drunken and vicious men whom he may her letter, and would like us to represent a piece in choose to harbor. To illustrate the principle here her quilt. We thus conspicuously draw attention stated we need go no farther than the case of the to her liberal offer, and we hope the wives of our Pittsburgh and Connellsville R Co. v. Pilloro, 76 Penn. subscribers will respond. But for ourselves we St. 510. In the case cited a drunken row occurred on cannot consent to become a principal to the insane

board one of defendant's cars, and during the quarcomfortable; we draw the line after accessory. The rel a bottle was broken and a piece of the glass struck address is H. Griffith, Sago, Ohio.

the plaintiff, a peaceful passenger, in the eye and put it out; held that the company was responsible

for the injury thus done. The plaintiff lost his The schoolmaster seems to be "abroad” from eve through the quarrel of a couple of drunken Vermont. In Rowell v. School District, 59 Vt. 658, men, who should not have been permitted aboard it was held that there is an implied promise on the the cars, or if so permitted, should have been so part of a school district to pay a de facto committee guarded or separated from the sober and orderly for boarding a teacher, and for labor and material part of the passengers that no injury could have refurnished it, when though not legally elected, he sulted from their brawls.' If then a railroad comacted in good faith as a committee, and the district pany is liable for the conduct of drunken men who may chance to board its cars, much more the tav- be compelled to make profert of his person, and ern-keeper, who not only permits drunken men thus, as it were, make evidence against himself. about his premises, but furnislies liquor to make The authorities upon this subject are collated in them drunk, and who is thus instrumental in fitting | 15 Cent. Law J. 2, and are not unequally divided, them for the accomplishment of such an insane and but we know of no civil case where the injured brutal trick as that disclosed by the evidence of person has not been permitted to exhibič his wounds the case in hand. The judgment of the court be- | to the jury. In Schroeder v. Railroad Co., 47 lowa, low is now reversed and a new venire granted.” 375, it was held not only that the plaintiff would

be permitted, in actions for personal injuries, to ex.

hibit his wounds or injuries to the jury, but that In Osborne v. City of Detroit, United States Cir- | he might be required by the court, upon proper apcuit Court, E, D. Michigan, Oct. 25, 1886, 32 Fed. plication therefor by the defendant, to submit his Rep. 36, an action for injuries occasioned by a de person to an examination for the purpose of ascerfective sidewalk, where the plaintiff claimed to be taining the extent of such injuries, and upon reparalyzed by the fall, it was held not error to per- fusal might be treated as in contempt. See also mit her medical attendant, who had not been | | Mulhado v. Railroad Co., 30 N. Y. 370." See note, sworn, to demonstate her loss of feeling to the | 33 Am. Rep. 540. jury by thrusting a pin into the side plaintiff claimed to be paralyzed. The court said : “Objec- In Forwood v. Forwood, Kentucky Court of Appeals, tion was made to this upon the ground that the | Oct. 1, 1887, it was held that in the absence of doctor was not sworn as to the instrument he was fraud a woman who is sui juris, may, by ante-nupusing, nor was the plaintiff sworn to behave natu- tial contract, relinquish her right of dower and disrally while she was being experimented upon. It is tributive share in lier intended husband's estate; argued that both the doctor and plaintiff might and the marriage of the parties is a sufficient con: have wholly deceived the court and jury without | sideration to sustain such contract. The court laying themselves open to a charge of perjury, and said : “ There is a class of cases which hold that a that plaintiff was not even asked to swear whether woman cannot by ante-nuptial contract legally disthe instrument hurt her when it was used on the pose of her right to dower in her intended husleft side, or did not hurt her when used on the band's lands, because, first, she cannot contract right side; in short, that there was no sworn testi- | away or release a right before it has accrued; mony or evidence in the whole performance, and second, that no right or title to a freehold could be no practical way of detecting any trickery which barred by a collateral satisfaction. This class of might have been practiced. We know however of cases therefore holds that such a contract is not enno oath which could be administered to the doctor forceable at law because it has no legal existence; or the witness touching this exhibition. So far as but it is an executory, equitable agreement, which we are aware, the law recognizes no oaths to be ad- a court of equity will enforce a specific performance ministered upon the witness stand except the ordi- of as against the widow, provided the agreement is nary oath to tell the truth, or to interpret correctly reasonable, fair, and upon an adequate considerafrom one language to another. The pin by which tion; but if it appears that the agreement is unreathe experiment was performed was exhibited to the sonable, unconscientious, and without an adequate jury. There was nothing which tended to show consideration, a court of equity will not enforce a trickery on the part of the doctor in failing to in- specific performance of it. Such are the cases resert the pin as he was requested to do, nor was lied upon by the counsel for the appellee. There is there any cross-examination attempted from the another class of cases whicu hold that while such a witness upon this point. Counsel were certainly contract is not binding at law, because the parties at liberty to examine the pin and to ascertain cannot contract away or release a right that does whether in fact it was inserted in the flesh, and not exist, yet its enforcement does not rest upon having failed to exercise this privilege, it is now the doctrine of specific performance, but the contoo late to raise the objection that the exhibition tract constitutes an equitable bar to the widow's was incompetent. It is certainly competent for the right of dower. This class of cases does not regard plaintiff to appear before the jury, and if she had an adequate consideration as essential to uphold lost an arm or a leg by reason of the accident, they the contract; any valuable consideration is deemed could hardly fail to notice it. By parity of reason sufficient. The question involved in both of these ing, it would seem that she was at liberty to ex- | classes of cases was that of a jointure or settlement hibit her wounds if she chose to do so, as is fre- upon the intended wife in lieu of her dower or disquently the case where an ankle has been sprained tributable share in her intended husband's estate. or broken, a wrist fractured, or any maiming bas There is another class of cases that hold (and with occurred. I know of no objection to her showing which we agree) that an ante-nuptial contract is a the extent of the paralysis which had supervened legal contract, the consideration of which may be, by reason of the accident, and evidence that her first, that of the intended marriage alone; or second, right side was insensible to pain certainly tended that of a jointure or settlement upon the intended to show this paralyzed condition. In criminal cases wife in lieu of her dower or distributable share in it has been doubted whether the defendant could her intended husband's estate, and that either of these considerations, if both parties are sui juris, is such cohabitation, and her children, of whom E., a friend sufficient to uphold the ante-nuptial agreement on

of the testator, was the putative father. It did not ap

pear that the intercourse between E. and the bastard the part of the woman to relinquish her right of

daughter of testator was carried on in consequence of any dower and distributable share in her intended hus

agreement or promise on the testator's part to make proband's estate. By such a contract the parties do vision for such child, and the children born in consenot in fact contract away a right which does not ex quence of such intercourse, and the will was in fact made ist; but they do what is done every day, namely,

after the death of E. Held, that the will was not void on

the ground of public policy. provide a rule by agreement to be applied to their property rights in view of the relation that they

APPEAL from Superior Court, Hancock county; are about to enter into, instead of the rule that the

| A Lumpkin, J. law would furnish in the absence of the agreement. N. J. Hammond, Hill & Harris, Bacon & RutherSee 1 Bish. Mar. Wom., $$ 418, 425, 427. Also, ford and R. W. Patterson, for plaintiffs in error. this court virtually held in the case of Crostuaight 1 C. W. Du Bose, W. M. & M. P. Reese, J. T. Jordan, v. Hutchinson, 2 Bibb, 408, that an ante-nuptial con and Reese & Little, contra. tract wbich was not to take effect until after co

HALL, J. In response to a notice served by the exverture was a legal contract. To the same effect is

ecutors of David Dickson, late of Hancock county, the case of Mitchel's Adm'r v. Mitchel, 4 B. Mon. deceased, on his heirs and distributees, to show cause 380. We have seen that marriage alone is a suffi why this will should not be proved in solemn form, a cient consideration to uphold an ante-nuptial mar portion of them appeared and caveated the Probate riage contract. Bishop (1st vol. on Married Women,

Court on the grounds: (1) That the will was procured

by the undue influence of Amanda Dickson and her $ 775) says: "To say therefore that it is to be re

mother, Julia Dickson, or one of them. (2) That it garded, when it is the inducement to any contract,

was procured by the fraud of said Julia and Amanda, as a valuable consideration, is to utter the truth, in inducing said David Dickson to believe that said yet only a part of the truth. What this utterance Amanda was his child, when she was not; and that lacks is in our books not infrequently expressed by

ber sons were the sons of Eubanks, when they were

not. (3) That the whole paper is a scheme to carry the adjective highest, as marriage is the highest

into effect the last clauses of item 4, all of the seventh consideration known to the law.' In the case of

item, and all of the ninth item, relating to said Naill v. Maurer, 25 Md. 538, the court says: “The Amanda and her said children, the alleged natural contract was in contemplation of marriage, and as sons of Eubanks, which items are inconsistent with clearly appears, was intended to bar or prevent the the laws, or contrary to the policy of the State, and

therefore the whole paper is void as a will for this and acquisition thereby of any right by either party in

for the reasons stated in the caveat and this amend. the property of the other, in order that the marriage

ment; that if the whole is not void, said parts are proposed might take place. The main object in

void for said reason. The other reasons stated in the view was the consummation of the marriage, and it original caveat of file were that the paper was not Dawas to that end that the contract was executed. It vid Dickson's will; that he had no: testamentary caseems almost impossible to view the contract as

pacity to make a will; that it was made under the

undue influence and improper control exercised over founded on any other consideration, although the

him by Amanda Dickson; that it was made under a reciprocal character of the stipulations might be mistake as to his heirs at law, and was not such a will held to constitute one sufficient to make the con as he would have made had he known the facts; betract binding and effective. But whether the mar cause the paper was in its scheme and nature and tenriage they proposed be expressly mentioned as a

dency illegal and immoral, and contrary to the policy

of the State and of the law, and destructive and subconsideration or not, we think it must be regarded

versive of the interests and welfare of society. as such within the purview and meaning of the con

The will was admitted to probate by the Court of tract. The consideration of marriage is not only Ordinary, and from this judgment the caveators apregarded as sufficient to uphold an ante-nuptial con pealed. On the appeal trial, all questions as to the catract, but the consideration may be regarded by the

pacity of the testator to make a will was abandoned. woman as of inestimable value to her – a value that |

The other grounds of the careat were those relied on

to defeat the probate of the will. On this trial, as well would by far outweigh her property rights in the

as that before the Ordinary, the will was sustained, estate of her intended husband. The appellee's and a judgment was taken admitting it to probate aud marriage contract with her husband, William H. record. Forwood, therefore must stand, unless he over

The material questions discussed before this court reached and defrauded her in the making of it.”

were: (1) That the will was the result of the undue inSee Barth v. Lynes, 118 Ill. 374; S. C., 59 Am. Rep.

finence exercised by Amanda Dickson, one of the

principal beneficiaries under its provisions, and her 374, to the same effect.

mother, Julia Dickson, upon the testator. (2) That it resulted from false and fraudulent representations

made by Amanda and Julia, not only as to the paterWILL - DEVISE TO BASTARD CHILDREN - nity of Amanda, but of Amanda's children, it being PUBLIC POLICY.

insisted that Amanda was not the child of the test.

tor, and that her song, Julian H. and Charles G., were GEORGIA SUPREME COURT, JUNE 13, 1887.

not the natural sons of the testator's deceased friend,

Charles H. Eubanks. (3) That in consequence of SMITH V. Du Bose.

these facts, the will embodied a scheme of Amanda A testator, a white man, who had cohabited with a colored and Julia to carry out the same by virtue of the items

woman, devised all his property to the bastard child of and provisions in favor of Amanda and her children;

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »