yoo
THE GREEN BAG
be reasonableness and whether the persons affected are unjustly hampered in their compe tition with others, not whether all other workers, even those in other industries not competing with them, are included within the law. See opinion in People v. Smith, 66 N. W. Rep. 382; Lockner v. New York, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539; Missouri, Pacific Ry. Co. v. McKay, 127 U. S. 205, 210; Article on the True Criteria of Class Legisla tion, Central Law Journal, Vol. 60, page 425. Andrew A. Bruce. CRIMINAL LAW. (Disturbance of Public Assembly.) Ga. — A rather ingenious contention was raised in Tanner v. State, 54 Southeastern Reporter, 914. Defendant was prosecuted for disturbing divine worship. By law it is provided that the person who shall in any manner interrupt or disturb a congregation or persons lawfully assembled for divine service, and until they are disbursed from such place of worship, they shall be guilty ot a misdemeanor. Defendant in this case had gone to a church sometime before the con gregation arrived and sat upon the doorsteps; she had remained there and refused to allow anyone to enter, and by force and violence had kept the people out who had assembled for the purpose of divine worship. It was contended that there could be no violation of the statute unless the persons assembled having failed to enter had con ducted services on the outside of the church be fore dispersing. But this contention the court disposed of by holding that the protection of the law not only extended to persons engaged in divine service, but it begins as soon as they have assembled at the place of holding it and until they have dispersed therefrom. In support thereof the court cites Minter v. State, 104 Ga. 744, 30 S. E. 989. CRIMINAL LAWS. (Stealing gas.) Ill. — It is notorious that people who are otherwise honest have no scruples over attempting to outwit the custom house officers and that beating public ser vice corporations is not so serious an offense as "just plain stealing." In Illinois the occupant of a building lighted and heated by gas arranged by means of rubber hose connections to have the gas flow from the supply pipe around the meter without passing through. When the agent of the gas company was expected he would replace the meters and allow them to remain in position until they had been read. This plan worked so satisfactorily that he afterwards discarded the rubber pipe and took gas direct from the main by means of stopcocks and pipes concealed in the walls of the building. This proceeding was discovered and prosecution begun. Woods v. People, 78 N. E. 607. The Supreme Court
of Illinois adopts previous holdings of other courts to the effect that gas used for illuminating and heating purposes may be the subject of lar ceny. Commonwealth v. Shore, 4 Allen (Mass.) 308; State v. Wellman 25 N. W. 395. and Regina v. White, 6 Cox C. C. 213 are cited. The conten tion was made that prosecution should be brought not for larceny but under that section of the Criminal Code which makes it an offense for per sons to tamper with gas meters. The section referred to does not undertake to punish one for unlawfully abstracting gas, but was passed with a view to protect gas, water, or electric meters from being tampered with or false connection being made, so that gas. etc., might be consumed or utilized without passing through or being registered by the meter. The contention is re jected, however, and it is pointed out that one might be guilty of a violation of this section with out obtaining any gas from the company. •Another interesting point raised by the case is whether the defendant was guilty of grand lar ceny, there being a dispute as to whether the evidence showed that the gas taken at any one time amounted to more than $15. The question was whether the amount consumed each day was to be construed as a separate taking, or whether a single offense covered the entire periods in each month during which the appliance for securing the gas was in operation. The court instructed the jury that if they believed that the defendant had been stealing gas for any number of days con tinuously prior to the time of the discovery, they should add together the various values of gas stolen from day to day during this period in fix ing the value of the property stolen. This in struction is approved by the Supreme Court. CRIMINAL LAW. (Murder in Jail.) Tex. — The question is raised in the case of Brown v. State, 95 S. W. 1039, as to whether one who has been previously convicted and is serving a sen tence in the penitentiary for a prior murder may be tried and convicted and sentenced to death for a murder committed while in the penitentiary. The court arbitrarily disposes of the contention by saying that it cannot be seriously argued. The court adds that no authorities were cited, and that it is not aware of any provision of law, statutory or otherwise, which would prevent the trial and conviction of a convict for homicide, or for any other offense committed while he was detained as a prisoner by virtue of his prior conviction. In spite of the fact that no authorities were sub mitted, the question is not a new one. having been passed upon a number of times in several states, and, as a matter of fact, has been previously passed upon by the same court in the case of Coleman v.
