Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/737

THE GREEN BAG Oil Co. to prevent his removal to Texas to answer came to the opposite conclusion and upheld a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The title a charge of false swearing. His counsel con tended that the indictment attached to the of the case is Haase v. Morton & Morton, It is requisition was insufficient and that no crime reported in 115 N. W. Rep. 923. was charged by it. The court said that it was NEGLIGENCE. (Res Ipsa Loquitur.) N. Y. not necessary that the accusation on which ex Sup. Ct. — Plaintiff, in Moglia v. Nassau Elec. tradition was asked should be good as a criminal R. Co., in New York Supplement, 70 was injured pleading but that it need only show that a crime by an electric shock received from one of the poles had been committed. The fact that it appeared of defendant's trolley system. Defendant offered on the face of the indictment that prosecution no evidence and the trial court instructed the was barred by limitation was held not to be a jury that the fact of the accident called for an proper question for consideration in the habeas explanation, and that, as none was offered by corpus proceeding. The judgment of the circuit defendant, the verdict should be given for plain court refusing to discharge the prisoner was tiff, the only question being as to the amount of affirmed. damages. It was contended on the part of INFANTS. (Guardianship of, at Places of defendant that the jury was not bound to believe Entertainment.) N. Y. Sup. Ct. — One of the plaintiff, but should be left free to determine decisive questions in People v. Samwick, 11 1 New whether in fact he was injured in the manner York Supplement, n, was as to the meaning of shown by his testimony, and that even if the the term "guardian," as used in the statute, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, the forbidding the admission to certain places of inference of negligence to be drawn therefrom entertainment and amusement of children under was one for the jury. The Appellate Division 16 years of age, unless accompanied by parent or held that a prima facie case was made out and the "guardian." The court said that the word should trial court committed no error in failing to sub not be restricted to apply only to a guardian in mit the issue of negligence to the jury. the sense of one appointed by court, but that the PATENTS. (Effect of Nonuser.) U. S. Sup. law would be complied with if a child should be Ct. — Will the fact that the owner of a patent accompanied by its elder brother or sister, neigh fails to put the invention to any practical use bor, or friend. bar his right to enjoin its infringement? The NEGLIGENCE. (Hospital Nurse.) la. — In a Supreme Court of the United States passed by case appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court it was this question in Continental Paper Bag Co. o. shown that plaintiff was injured by falling down Eastern Paper Bag Co., 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748an open elevator shaft at a hospital just after Defendant claimed that public policy demanded having been operated on by the defendants. One that an inventor to whom had been granted the of the members of defendant firm, being called monopoly accorded by the patent law owed the to plaintiff's home in a professional capacity, duty of giving to the world the benefits of his determined a surgical operation necessary and invention and that unless there was some good took plaintiff to a nearby hospital for its per excuse for not doing so equity ought not to inter formance. After the operation was over and pose 'to protect him. In this case it appeared while plaintiff was still under the influence of an that the holder of the patent made no use of it anaesthetic, she was taken by a nurse and the because of the cost of changing from its old junior member of defendant firm to the elevator machinery. There was no proof that by reason for the. purpose of being removed to the room thereof the cost of their product was increased or assigned hef. The door of the shaft was open the output diminished. The court held the nonand the elevator was somewhere below. Both user not unreasonable under the circumstances the nurse and physician left plaintiff while trying and granted an injunction. It did not, however, to make some arrangement to get the elevator really decide the question which the case was up, and during this time the car or stretcher supposed to raise. PRACTICE. (Writ of Protection — Insane on which she was lying was by some means started (probably by an involuntary movement Person.) U. S. C. C. A. — In point of novelty on the part of plaintiff while still unconscious), as to facts and legal questions involved, the case and ran into the open shaft, causing the injuries of Chanler v. Sherman, 162 Fed. Rep. 19, is per complained of. It was contended that the move haps one of the most interesting of recent years. ment of the car was something not to have reason In 1897 petitioner was adjudged insane by the ably been foreseen and that the act of leaving it Supreme Court of New York and ordered com in the exposed position could not be considered mitted to an asylum in that state. Two years the proximate cause of the injury. The court later ah order was made by the same court appoint