636
THE GREEN BAG
victod of murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas said: " Under our statutes the mere fact of administering poison from which a party dies is not necessarily homicide. . . . However wicked or malicious may have been the purposes or intent of the accused in administering the poison, yet if deceased took it voluntarily, knowing what the result might be, her death would not constitute culpable homicide." Since it is not a violation of law for a person to commit suicide, one furnishing another the means to the commission of suicide violates no law. DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS. (Duty to read Reported Cases.) Cal. App. — In the case of People v. Maughs, 96 Pac. Rep. 407. an appeal from a judgment and order refusing a new trial to one convicted of murder, the Court of Appeal of California, criticising the failure of the prosecuting attorneys and the trial judge to familiarize themselves with a decision on a former appeal in the same case, said that had they read the opinions, even hastily, it would at least seem as if no such chances for a reversal of the present appeal would have been taken as are apparent from the slipshod course pursued; that although judges may have little time for reading decisions of higher courts, yet practicing lawyers are sup posed to watch the reported cases, particularly where they dispose of questions with which they have to deal in impending trials; that it is the duty of the state's attorneys to apprise the judge of such decisions; and that if in these circum stances such conduct had been prejudicial to appellant's rights a reversal would be ordered with out hesitation. DIVORCE. (Connivance at Wife's Adultery.) Ct. Ch. of N. J. — Complainant, who sought a ground for divorce against his wife, employed a detective agency to secure evidence. Thereupon it sent one of its employees, a woman, to com plainant's house who engaged board there. Hav ing been there a few days she invited defendant to accompany her to New York. There they met two men provided by the agency, who accom panied them to the matinee, to a wine room, and finally to a hotel in Hoboken. Other members of the agency, having watched them, forced the door and found defendant in bed with one of the men. The Court of Chancery of New Jersey in Rademacher v. Rademacher, 70 Atl. Rep. 687, held that while this outrageous performance was not authorized by complainant himself, it was conducted in his interest by his agent, and he was not in a position to take advantage of a position brought about by his agent's acts. DIVORCE. (Flirtation.) Fla. — A husband, in a suit for divorce, alleged that his wife had at
various times and at various places entered into relations of the utmost intimacy with young men, such as love making, secret meetings, and corre spondence, and that such intercourse was not pure, and was in violation of the moral standards which should govern married people. However, he failed to charge any specific act of criminality for lack of evidence. In the case of Hancock v. Hancock. 45 So. Rep, 1020, the Supreme Court of Florida holds that such allegations stripped of insinuations, intimations, and innuendoes, simply charged defendant in the most general way with indiscreet and imprudent conduct and relations with young men. all of which might be embraced under the term " flirting," and however repre hensible such conduct may be in a married woman, it does not constitute one of the grounds of divorce. DIVORCE. (Repudiation of Decree.) Kans.— In Bledsoe v. Seaman, 95 Pac. Rep. 576, plaintiff sues for the alienation of the affections of a man from whom she has been divorced for seven years. Plaintiff's husband having acquired the affection of defendant, a spiritualist lecturer, and having been imbued by her with the doctrine of free love, abandoned his wife, took up his residence in South Dakota for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, and thereafter lived in adultery with defendant. When an action for divorce was commenced by the husband, plaintiff appeared and filed an answer and a cross-petition, in which she asked for a divorce, the custody of their child, and alimony. The judgment for alimony still stands in her favor. In the present action plain tiff contends that as her husband was never a bona fide resident of South Dakota, and had resided there less than six months, the court had not acquired jurisdiction in the divorce suit. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that a party hav ing obtained the relief desired cannot repudiate the action of the court on the ground that it was without jurisdiction, and that when plaintiff pro cured the divorce, the defendant, having knowledge thereof, had a right to assume that plaintiff no longer had or claimed any right to the affections or society of her former husband and that any subsequent relations with him would not infringe on the right of plaintiff. EQUITY. (Injunction — Secret Process.) N. J. Ct. Err. ard App.— In a suit to restrain one from using secret processes the vice-chancellor refused to admit evidence as to the details of them or cross examination with reference thereto. The diffi culty in this case was to afford adequate pro tection to a secret if any disclosure of it was re quired. It was necessary for the court to know whether an article of high repute owed its reputa tion to skill in manipulation acquired by expert
