Notes of Recent Cases. Old age and infirmity may be upon him, his virility may be greatly diminished; his amorous desires may be few and feeble, and the failure to have them gratified a matter of no great importance. If such be his con dition, whatever might be held as to a hus band differently situated, we are of the opin ion that the wife's conduct, though wrongful, was not such an excess, cruel treatment, or outrage as to render their living together unsupportable. ELECTRIC LIGHTS. (LIABILITY OF ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM DEFECTIVE LIGHT.) SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.
Fish г'. Kirlin-Gray Electric Co., 99 Northwestern Reporter, 1092, was an action to recover .from an electric light company for injuries to a person attending church by the falling of an electric arc light lamp sus pended from the ceiling of the church. The electric company had sold the arc light to the church under contract by which it was to furnish electricity and keep the light in repair. Under such a contract the electric company was liable for any injuries resulting from its negligence in suspending, care and management of such light. The case of Ex celsior Light Co. v. Sweet, 57 N. J. Law, 224, 30 Atl. 553, the court considers as some what analogous. It also considers the prin ciple laid down in Thomas i'. Maysville Gas Co., 56 S. V. 153, 53 L. R. A. 147, as con trolling. GLASS OF WHISKEY AND SANDWICH CON STITUTE A MEAL. (LIQUOR TAX LAW — SELLING ON SUNDAY — VIOLATION.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
In re Cullinan, 87 New York Supplement, 660, was a proceeding to revoke and cancel a liquor certificate on the ground of a viola tion of the Liquor Tax Law by selling li quor on Sunday. Respondent conducted a hotel at Coney Island, and claimed the pri vileges accorded by clause k, section 31 of the Liquor Tax Law (Laws of 1897, p. 233, c. 312), which permits the keeper of a hotel
567
who holds a liquor tax certificate to sell li quor on Sunday to his guests with their meals. It was admitted that whiskey was sold on Sunday, but it was claimed that there was no violation of the law inasmuch as a sandwich was served with each glass of whis key, a glass of whiskey and a sandwich con stituting a meal. In regard to this claim the court says: "There can be no reason able doubt that under some circumstances a sandwich and a drink of whiskey or other beverage constitute a meal, under our mod ern Bohemian system of living. Many men in clubs, at restaurants and elsewhere con fine their eating at certain periods of the day to a single dish—to a bowl of soup, to a plate of beans, or a sandwich—and there is no particular kind or quantity of food which the law demands for a meal, so far as we have been able to discover; it all depends upon the person to be served and the condi tion of the appetite." The court, however, in this case, came to the conclusion that as the purchasers of the whiskey expressly stated that they did not wish the sandwiches, and that as they did not eat them, a meai was not served in good faith, as required, and hence the statute was violated. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. (HEARING BEFORE COMMISSION — POWER то COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PAPERS.)
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 24 Supreme Court Reporter, 563, was a proceeding to compel the production of papers and the giving of testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Interstate Commerce Commission filed its petition for an order to compel respondents to produce contracts under which railroad companies engaged in carrying coal from the anthracite regions in Pennsylvania to tide water, or coal companies owned by the rail roads, purchased coal from independent operators engaged in mining in that district, for which payment was made on the basis of a fixed percentage of the average price at certain tide points of coal of the same qual ity and size. Respondents contended that
