of its condition for months before, and the filthy, wet, and fro/.en condition of a city prison for several months is presumed to be within the knowledge of the authorities. Shields i>. Town of Durham, 118 N. C. 450; 36 L. R. A. 293, citing Lewis •;>. City of Raleigh, 77 N. C. 229. There is not much discus sion of the matter in either case; the liability seems to be taken for granted under a constitution and stat utes requiring jails to be kept clean. In the latter case the prisoner had died on account of the noxious air of the city guardhouse, which was under the market. •' He was not a bad man," said the court; "he was not a drunkard, but sometimes drank too much — a weakness so common that it would seem invidious to call it a crime in him. He had drunk too much and instead of letting him go home as he asked to be allowed to do, or of carrying him home as it would have been humane to do, and as he who made him drunk was naturally bound to do, he was carried to a hole like Calcutta's, where he died be fore morning." This inhumanity cost the city $2,000. A county, however, is not thus liable. White 7'. Sullivan Co. Comm'rs, 129 Ind. 396; Pfefferie т. Lyon Co. Comm'rs, 39 Kans. 432; Hite v. Whittey Co. Ct., 91 Ky. 168; 11 L. R. A. 122; Manuel 7'. Cumberland Co. Comm'rs, 98 N. C. 9; and see Webster v. Hillsdale County, 99 Mich. 259; Lindley v. Polk County, 84 Iowa, 308. As to towns and cities there is some conflict of decision, some courts holding that there is no such liability : La Clef v. Concordia, 41 Kans. 323; 13 Am. St. Rep.,285; Odell?'. Schroeder, 58 Ill. 353; Brown т. Guyandotte, 34 W. Va. 299; il L. R. A. 121; Gulliksonv. McDonald, 62 Minn. 278; while on the other hand, in Edwards?1. Pocahontas, 47 Fed. Rep. 268, the court, after alluding to the distinction between counties and municipal corporations proper, held that if a munici pality having power to maintain a jail, although not re quired to do so, undertakes to exercise the power, it will be liable tor the negligent exercise of it in keep ing the jail in such a filthy and unfit condition that the health of a prisoner is injured thereby. Even the North Carolina court holds if the municipality has furnished a proper place it will not be liable, if without its knowledge it is negligently permitted to become unfit by the attendant : Moffit v. Asheville, 103 N. C. 237; 14 Am. St. Rep. 810; Shields v. Durham, 116 N. C. 394. That the negligent keeper or authorities are individually liable has been inti mated, but never directly decided, while in Williams v. Adams, 3 Allen, 171, it was held that a prisoner cannot maintain an action against the keeper of a jail for failure to provide him with suitable and proper food, clothing and warmth, in the absence of express malice on his part. These cases are cited in notes 36 L. R. A. 293.
551
A SERIOUS JOKE. — In Plate v. Durst, 42 W. Va. 63, it appeared that the plaintiff, in 1885, an orphan girl of twelve, went to live with her brother-in-law, and was treated by him as a daughter and rendered him service as such, in his house and store, until 1890, when he told her that when she should have lived with him ten years he would give her $1000, and on an other occasion told her that when she married he would give her $1000 and a 8500 diamond ring, or diamond earrings. She stayed till 1894, when he dismissed her. But Judge Dent, in answer to the de fendant's intimation that what he said was in jest remarked : " Jokes are sometimes taken seriously by the young and inexperienced in the deceptive ways of the business world, and if such is the case, and thereby the person deceived is led to give valuable services in the full belief and expectation that the joker is in earnest, the law will also take the joker at his word, and give him good reason to smile." How, pray? — " on the other side of his mouth," perhaps. Defendant's counsel, having complained of the ad mission into the record of unnecessary verbiage on the part of the plaintiff, was reminded by the court that they had not been guiltless in this regard, and "their attention is respectfully called to the celebrated decision of a beam against a mote with which they are familiar." Now we wonder if the plaintiff can get those diamonds when she marries! In the same volume (State 7'. Cross, p. 261) occurs a curious use of language, the court distinguishing a purely acci dental homicide trom " a monstrous sedate murder."
MORE PUNCTUATION. — Behold how great a matter a little comma kindled! In Sager v. Summers, 49 Neb. 461, it was held that a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors, if unwitnessed, is abso lutely void. The court said : "In Deere v. Losey, 48 Neb. 622, we reached a contrary conclusion, but we were led into that error by the punctuation of section 6 of the assignment act found in the Com piled Statutes. In that section the compiler placed a comma after the word -acknowledged,' in the fourth line of said section 6. This would justify a reading of that section as follows : ' That an assign ment for the benefit of creditors, to entitle it to be recorded, must be executed and acknowledged in the manner in which a conveyance of real estate is or shall be required to be executed and acknowledged '! But on looking at the enrolled act it will be observed that the only comma in the first sentence of said sec tion is after the word • writing,' which makes the section read, in effect, that a deed of assignment shall be in writing, and shall be executed and acknowl edged in the same manner that an ordinary deed of real estate is required to be executed and acknowl
