552
THE GREEN BAG
ELECTIONS. (Frauds.) Ky.*— Cases of more than local interest, not so much on account of the law as the facts involved, are the consolidated cases of Scholl v. Bell, and Peter v. Wilson, rec ently decided by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and reported in 102 S. W. 248. These cases in volve the validity of the county and city elections held in Louisville and Jefferson County in Novem ber, 1905. The Democratic majorities at this election, as reported in the final count, range from 3,373 to 5,280 votes. The opposing candi dates were nominated as fusionists. The court in reviewing the facts finds that in some precincts no polling places were open, that in others, the polling places were secretly moved, and the votes cast alphabetically, according to the registration lists, without the presence of the voters, that in others, the polls were raided by a band of armed men at about the time they should have been closed, and the ballot boxes seized, carried off, and the contents destroyed, that in others, the ballots were burned before the count had been completed, etc. By these means such a large number of voters were disfranchised that if they had all voted for the defeated candidates, they would have been elected by majorities ranging from 3,425 votes to 5,332 votes. As a result, the court feels compelled to declare the election void and the offices filled by such election vacant. ELECTIONS. (State Committee — Powers.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — As the democratic state com mittee of New York is, under the laws of that state, elected by delegates from the respective senatorial districts, and has no constitution or by-laws regulating its actions, the Supreme Court in Cummings v. Bailey, 104 N. Y. Supp. 283, 53 Misc. Rep. 142, holds that a majority of the state committee cannot expel the represen tatives of a county therein, and that an attempted expulsion will be enjoined. The court is of the opinion that no such extreme arbitrary power as to expel members of the committee and elect others in their places shall be asserted without express authority, and as the committee has no constitution or by-laws it has no such express authority conferred on it. ELECTIONS. (See Constitutional Law.) EQUITY. (Plaintiff's Misconduct.) N.J. Ch. — Several interesting points receive consideration in Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co,, 62 Atl. 881, recently decided by Vice-Chancellor Bergen of the New Jersey Court of Chancery. In this case it appeared that a German firm had per fected and was using a secret process for the detin ning of tin scrap. The employees of this company knew that the company was trying to keep this process secret. Afterwards some of the employees
went over to a Dutch firm. Later on, an American company obtained the right to use this detinning process from the Dutch firm and also secured employees from the latter. Then, another Ameri can company obtained the knowledge of the pro cess by fraudulent means from the first American company, and the latter brought suit against the second American company to restrain the use of the process, but, as the complainant had itself obtained knowledge of the process from one who had fraudulently obtained it from the originator, and as it had knowledge of this fraud, the court held that it was not entitled to relief. Pending the suit defendant obtained permission from the originator of the process to use the same, and com plainant insisted that such permission was held in trust for it, but this claim the court denied in view of the unconscionable conduct of com plainant in obtaining knowledge of the process. INFANTS. (Next Friend.) Ark. — Arkansas has a statute providing that any person may bring an action for an infant as his next friend, but this statute does not authorize the next friend to receive the money recovered in an action, accord ing to the recent decision in Wood & Henderson v. Claiborne, 102 S. W. 219. Hence the payment by an infant's attorney of the proceeds of a judg ment to his father, who prosecuted the action as next friend, is unauthorized. Such being the law, the minor on attaining his majority, may recover from the attorney the amount of the judg ment, and the fact that the former has attempted to make collection from his father will not bar him from suing the attorney, if no recovery was in fact had from the father. INNKEEPERS. (Liability for insults to guests.) N. Y. S. C. — That decisions of to-day are some times governed by precedents which seem to have outlived their usefulness, is forcibly illustrated in the recent case of DeWolf v. Ford, 104 N. Y. Supp. 876, decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, of the New York Supreme Court. In this case plaintiff, a guest at a hotel, brought an action against the hotel keeper on the ground that a servant of the latter had entered the room of plaintiff in the night time and against her pro test, and in the presence of others had used towards her insulting language and charged her with immoral conduct. The trial court dismissed the complaint and on appeal Judge Ingraham, writing the majority opinion, held that plaintiff was not entitled to recover as the innkeeper was not liable on any implied contract to protect the guest from insults. This decision is based in the main on an early English case, Calye's Case, 1 Smith's Leading Cases (8th Am. Ed.) 249, wherein it is laid down as a rule in England that the obligation of an inn
