INFANTS. (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.—FAILURE то FURNISH. — MISDEMEANOR. — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) NEW VORK COURT OF APPEALS.
In People v. Pearson, 68 Northeast ern Reporter 243, an indictment was prose cuted under Penal Code, Section 288, punishing one who fails to furnish medical attendance to a minor, in violation of a duty imposed by law. The question of liability, the court holds, is determined by the fact whether an ordinarily prudent person, solici tous for the welfare of the child would deem it necessary to call in a physician. The phrase "duty imposed by law" has reference to persons designated by the common law as parents, guardians, de. A considerable re view of the growth of medical science is pre sented, and then comes the important hold ing that by the term medical attendance," attendance by a regular licensed physician is meant, and attendance by one who, on ac count of his religious belief, neglects to furn ish proper medical care, relying on prayer for divine aid, is not included. The question oí the constitutionality of the statute is then considered, as to whether it violates Const. Art. i, Section 3, guaranteeing religious lib erty, and the court says in substance that a person cannot, under the guise of religious belief, commit acts which the Legislature has stigmatized as crimes. The following author ities are cited : Barker r. People, 3 Cow. 686704, 15 Am. Dec. 322; Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226-236, 23 Northeastern Reporter 8/8, 7 L. R. A. 134, 16 Am. St. Rep. 813; Thurlow t'. Massachusetts, 5 How. 504-583, 12 L. Ed. 256. In a concurring opinion Judge Cullen ex presses the opinion that the State cannot dic tate the medical treatment which an adult may rhoose to receive. INSURANCE. (DEFENSE OF SUICIDE.—STATUTORY PROHIBITION.—AGREEMENT FOR LESSER INDEM NITY.—VALIDITY.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
In Whitfield v. ^Etna Life Ins. Co., 125 Federal Reporter 269, the effect of Rev. St.
of Mo. 1889, Section 7896 (which provides that suicide shall be no defense to a suit on a life insurance policy, unless it be shown that the insured contemplated suicide when he ap plied for the policy, and that any stipulation in the policy to the contrary shall be void), on a contract providing for a lesser indem nity, in this case $500 instead of $5000, if insured committed suicide, is considered and the provision of the policy is held valid not withstanding the statute. The opinion turns to a considerable degree on the definition of the term "defense, as used in the statute. The court holds that the Legislature has not undertaken to say that parties making a contract of insurance shall not agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid by the company in the event of death from sui cide. Baltimore Ry. Co. г'. Voight, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Supreme Court Reporter 385, 44 L. Ed. 560; Shaw г>. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 565, 25 L. Ed. 892, are cited on the right of private contract, and on the construction of statutes in derogation of the common law; and the court says that the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals, in Keller г: Trav eler's Ins. Co., 58 Mo. App. 557 is not bind ing on it, as the court of appeals is not a court of the highest jurisdiction in Missouri. INVENTIONS. (AGREEMENT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.—UNCONSCIONABLE CHARACTER.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF AP PEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT.
In Thibodeau v. Hildreth, 134 Federal Reporter 1892, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals held that an agree ment by an employé, in consideration of his employment, to give his employer the benefit of all inventions made by him, and to keep the same forever secret if the employer re quired, was not unconscionable, or against public policy, and such an agreement would not be canceled at the employe's instance. The opinion is very brief and amounts to a little more than a bare assertion of the contract's validity; but it is said that such agreements are not uncommon, and may be necessary for a reasonable protection of the employer's business.
