Notes of Recent Cases, f Accident, etc. Co., 6 Montreal Law Rep. 3; Martin v. Travelers', etc., Co., i Foster & F. 505; Xorth America, etc., Co. •-. Burroughs, 69 Pa. 43, 8 Am. Rep. 212; and Fetter v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 174 Mo. 256, 73 Southwestern Reporter 592, 61 L. R. A. 459, are relied on, and the court distinguishes or disapproves the cases of Bacon v. U. S., etc., Ass'n, 123 X. Y. 304 25 Northeastern Reporter 399, 9 L. R. A. 617, 20 Am. St. Rep. 748; Dozier г. Fidelity, etc., Co. (C. C), 46 Federal Reporter 446. 13 L. R. A. 114: Sinclair v. Maritime, etc., Co., 3 Ellis & Ellis 478; Southard v. Railway, etc., Co., 34 Conn. 574, Fed. Cas. No. 13.182; and Feder v. Iowa, etc., Ass'n., 107 Iowa 538, 78 North western Reporter 252, 43 L. R. A. 693, 70 Am. St. Rep. 212. The concluding portion of the opinion reads: "If, for example, in lieu of producing the more gradual and pro tracted infirmities of acute kidney disease or dropsical affection, the infected material sub mitted to defendant's workwoman had emit ted poisonous gases or fumes, producing her instantaneous death, or resulting in immedi ate and violent convulsions, under number less authorities the occurrence would, in legal contemplation and within the interpre tation of policies insuring against accidents, be confidently pronounced accidental, yet such consequences would be disease pro duced by such known causes. In conclusion, after lull consideration, upon a fair and legal construction of the terms of this policy, . . . the injury sustained by respondent's employé upon its premises in handling the infected rags and wall paper fell fairly within its true meaning and intent." JUROR. (MISCONDUCT—SLEEPING DURING ARGU MENT.) TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS.
In Slaughter v. Coke County, 79 South western Reporter 863, it is held that an as signment of error, complaining of the mis conduct of a juror, in that he slept through out the greater portion of the argument of appellant's counsel, cannot be sustained, the court saying that the counsel should at least have asked that the juror be awakened.
505
The case starts an interesting train of re flection as to the soporific effects of argu ments to the jury, and raises a query in the mind, whether, the court would not have been justified in applying the doctrine of estoppel. LIBEL. (RETRACTION — EFFECT ON DAMAGES— STATUTORY PROVISION — CONSTITUTIONALITY— DUE COURSE OF LAW.) KANSAS SUPREME COURT.
In Hanson v. Krehbiel, 75 Pacific Repor ter 1041, section 18 of the Kansas Bill of Rights guarantying remedy by due course of law to all persons for injuries suffered in person, reputation, etc., is held to invalidate Gen. St. 1901, c. 57b providing that before a civil action for newspaper libel shall be brought, plaintiff must serve notice on the defendants, who, if they make retraction in their paper in as conspicuous a manner as the libel itself was published, are to be liable only for actual damages, which the statute defines as those which the plaintiff shall show he has suffered in property, business, trade, profession or occupation. The general damages usually recoverable in a libel, de signed to compensate for "that large and substantial class of injuries arising from in jured feelings, mental suffering and anguish, and personal and public humiliation," are cut off. These damages were allowed at the time the Kansas constitution was adopted, and the court says it requires no argument to demonstrate that the act in question does deny remedy for a portion of the injury suffered from a libel. Park г1. Detroit Free Press Co., 72 Mich. 560, 40 Northwestern Reporter 731, i R. A. 599. 16 Am. St. Rep. 544 in which a similar statute was held in. valid, is referred to, as is also Allen r. Pio neer Press Co., 40 Minn. 117, 41 Northwest ern Reporter 936, 3 L. R. A. 432, 12 Am. St. Rep. 707 in which such a statute was up held. The suggestion that the retraction re quired by the act is a fair compensation for the injury done and a reinvestment of the plaintiff with his good name, so that by its means all has been accomplished that would
