Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/308

292 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not give the defendant an inviolable right to have the question of the sufficiency of the service decided by the court in the first instance and alone. York v. State of Texas, ii Sup. Ct. Rep. 9. Constitutional Law — Interstate Commerce — Delegation of Power TO Regulate. — The act of Congress, 1890, known as the "Wilson Bill," does not delegate to the States the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress, in the exercise of the constitutional power to regulate foreign and interstate com- merce, has declared the time when such imported property (intoxicating liquors) shall become subject to State laws. At some time imported property must lose the character of an article of interstate commerce, and become subject to State laws; and it is for Congress, which possesses the power to regulate commerce, to define the time or event which shall have the effect of subjecting importations to State control, and this is what is done by the " Wilson Bill " in regard to in- toxicating liquors. In re Stickler, 43 Fed. Rep. 653, 657. Constitutional Law — Suit to Question Validity of Election. — A tax-payer may contest by equitable proceedings the validity of an election by which his interests are affected. The Statute of Limitations does not run against this right, but the action must be brought within a reasonable time after the election, and before the rights of innocent third persons have accrued under the action of the authorities in pursuance of the result of the election. Jones v. Commissioners^ 12 S. E. Rep. 69 (N. C). Contracts — Illegal Consideration — Agreement to Stifle Prosecu- tion. — The plaintiffs, a local board, brought an indictment against the defendants for obstructing a public road, but later agreed to consent to a verdict of " not guilty " if defendants would restore the road. The defendants did not restore the road. Held (following Keir v. Leemen, 9 Q. B. 371), that the contract was void. An agreement to stifle a prosecution for a public injury is none the less void because the consideration is a public benefit and the accom- plishment of the object of the prosecution, since nevertheless the administration of justice is taken from the judiciary. Windhill Local Board v. Vint, 45 Ch. Div. 351 (Eng.). Criminal Law — Attempt to Commit Larceny. — A person who puts his hand into the pocket of another to steal whatever may be in it is guilty of an attempt to commit larceny, though the commission of the crime was impossible because the pocket was empty. People v. Moran, 25 N. E. Rep. 412 (N. Y.). This point can now be considered finally settled ' in this country. The opinion of the General Term of the Supreme Court, which this case overrules, said all that could be said for the contrary doctrine. It is doubtful whether that doctrine would prevail even in England now; see Reg. v. Brown, 38 W. R. 95. Criminal Law — Former Conviction. — Held, a conviction for simple larceny in a recorder's court is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in the city court for the taking of the same property, on the same occasion, from a dwelling- house, though the recorder's court did not have jurisdiction in a case of larceny from a dwelling-house. Powell v. Slate, 8 So. Rep. 108 (Ala.). Equity Jurisdiction — Reformation of Deeds — Voluntary Trust. — The possession of certain land was given to a trustee for the benefit of the grantor's imbecile daughter. A deed was also executed and delivered, but through an error in description it did not cover the property of the grantor. Held, nevertheless, that equity could reform the deed although the conveyance was voluntary, for it constituted an executed trust. Lynn v. Lynjt, 25 N. E. Rep. 635 (111.). Evidence — Relevancy. — Testimony that the plaintiff's attorney has taken the case on a contingent fee is not admissible. Stearns v. Reidy, 25 N. E. Rep. 762 (111.). Insurance — Conditions. — A provision in a fire-insurance policy that the company shall not be liable *' for loss in case of fire happening by any insur- rection . . . nor explosions of any kind whatever within the premises, nor by concussions merely," does not exempt the company from liability for loss caused by the explosion of a lamp. Heffron v. Kittanning Ins. Co., 20 Atl. Rep. 698 ( Pa.). Insurance — Death by Disease. — Death resulting from a malignant pustule