734
THE GREEN BAG
consequences resulting from overzealousness of both the civil and military authorities in striving to uphold their respective rights and counsels moderation on the part of both. The decision in the case at bar was that the writ should issue and that Schlaffer should be turned over to his com manding officer. EVIDENCE (Criminal Law). Tex. Cr. App. — In Weatherford v. State, 103 S. W. Rep. 632, defendant was a doctor, prosecuted for giving illegal prescriptions for liquor in local option territory. Evidence was admitted showing that he had a license to practice medicine but that the only prescriptions he ever issued were those for liquor to be filled at a certain bar. Different persons applied for prescriptions for different ailments; some for fever and some for chills; but the prescription in each case was the same. The state was allowed to show a number of these prescriptions other than that on which the infor mation was based on the theory that it showed system or intent. FEDERAL COURTS (Jurisdiction). U. S. Cir. Ct. W. D. of N. C. — The decision of Judge Pritchard in the North Carolina passenger rate case is reported under the title Ex parte Wood, in 155 Fed. Rep. 190. This was a habeas corpus pro ceeding, in which petitioner sought release from imprisonment by state authorities of North Caro lina for violation of the maximum passenger rate law of that commonwealth. Some time prior thereto, suit had been instituted in the Federal Court by several railroad companies to restrain certain of the state officers from putting the law in operation, on the ground that it was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Pre liminary injunctions were issued pending inquiry as to the constitutionality of the statute. In order to preserve the rights of the traveling public, the court ordered that during the continuance of the injunctions, railroads should issue to purchasers of tickets, coupons showing the amount to which they should be entitled as a refund in case the rate law should be held valid, and directed that ample bond should be given by the railroad companies as security. Notwithstanding these proceedings, the governor of the state issued directions to state officers to proceed with the prosecution of persons violating the law in controversy, and in accor dance therewith the petitioner was arrested, con victed, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He then sought release by habeas corpus. The judge refers to the dangers involved in contro versies between state and federal authorities and disavows the imputation of any improper motives to the state officials, but at the same time holds that the proceedings taken were within the juris
diction of the court, and that a proper respect for its mandates requires that they should be enforced. It is held, also, that the section of the statute relating to penalties, if enforced, would make it utterly impossible for the company to carry on business while contesting the validity of the rate fixed, and is therefore void. The order of the court directed that petitioner be discharged. FIRE INSURANCE. (Notice-Premium). Eng. Equitable Fire, etc., Office v. The Ching Wo Hong. English Privy Council, 1907, Appeal Cases 96. In this appeal from the English Supreme Court of China, action was brought upon policies of insur ance, issued by the defendant company, which denied liability on the ground that the policies had become null and void because the plaintiff had omitted to give the company notice of an additional insurance effected by him in the West ern Assurance Company, without the consent of the defendant company, on the same goods. The plaintiff denied that there was, at the date of the fire, or ever had been, any effective insurance with the Western Assurance Company. The policies sued on contained a clause: "No additional insurance on the property hereby covered is allowed except by the consent of this company endorsed hereon. Breach of this condition will render this policy null and void." A further con dition endorsed on the policies provided that the insured must at the time of effecting the insur ance, give notice of any insurance on the property made elsewhere, and on effecting any insurance during the currency of the policy elsewhere the insured must give notice thereof to the company, and unless such notice be given, the insured will not be entitled to any benefit under the policies. Before the fire, which was the subject of the claim on the policies, occurred, the plaintiff took out a policy on the same property in the Western Assurance Company. This latter policy was found in the plaintiff's safe after the fire. By this policy it was witnessed that the insured had paid the premium required, and that if the prop erty described therein should be destroyed or damaged by fire the company would pay the sum agreed as insurance. But a further clause recited that the insurance would not be in force until the premium had been actually paid. The premium was not in fact paid, and the question was whether the policy executed by the Western Company ever became effective. The defendant company relying upon Roberts v. Security Company (1897 1 Q.B. 111), claimed that the Western Company were liable upon the policy, as they had delivered the policy and given credit for the premium, and therefore, an insurance having been effected, of which no notice had been given, the plaintiffs
