Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 53, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 March 1910 — Legal Information [ARTICLE]

Legal Information

A person who waits for a street car at a proper cross walk, sees the car coming, and is struck and injured by it through his own negligence, is held, in Wood vs. Omaha & C. B. street railway company (Neb.), 120 N. W. 1121, 22 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 228, not to be entitled to recover damages on the sole ground that the motorman failed to sound the gong. That a sidetrack of a railroad cannot be regarded as for public use, where it reaches a private factory, and the railroad company has connected for its use only when it can use it without interfering with the business of the manufacturer, is held in Pere Marquette R. Co. vs. United States Gypsum Co., 154 Mich. 290, 117 N. W. 733, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.)181.

The liability of a master for injury to an employe because of a defective railroad track, which he had promised to repair, upon complaint by the servant of its defective condition, is held, in Morgan vs. Rainier Beach Lumber Co., 51 Wash. 335, 98 Pac. 1120, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 472, not to be affected by the fact that "-the repair was not to be made until the happening of a future event, such as the return of a section boss, which had not occurred at the time of the injury.

An innkeeper is held, in Rockhill vs. Congress Hotel Co., 237 111. 98, 86 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576, not to be relieved from liability for the value of jewels forming part of the contents of a handbag of a guest, whic b is lost while in the actual possession of his servant, by a statute requiring him to keep a safe and post notices that he will not be liable for the valuables not delivered for deposit therein, and upon compliance therewith he shall not be liable for loss unless it shall occur by a servant employed by him in the inn.

The constitutionality of the law providing increased penalties for habitual criminals was assailed in State vs. Le Pitre, 103 Pacific Reporter, ??, The Washington Supreme Court decided that while the habitual criminal statute was a thing of modern creation, and there are many rules of law which may seem inconsistent with its purpose and the procedure adopted to compass it, it is nevertheless sound in principle and sustained by reason. Aside from the offender and his victim, there is always another party concerned in every crime committed —the State —and it does no violence to aify constitutional guaranty for the state to rid itself of depravity when its efforts to reform have failed. The act is not ex post facto. It does not deny the right of trial by Jury. It does not put the offender twice in Jeopardy. It does not inflict a double punishment for the same offense, or inflict a cruder unusual punishment, or Impose a penalty for a crime committed outside of the state. It merely provides an increased punishment for the last offense. The spirit of the law is in keeping with the acknowledged power of x the legislature to provide a minimum and maximum term within which the trial court may exercise its discretion in fixing sentence, taking into consideration, is it should al-, ways, the character of the person as well as the probability of reform*, tion; or the legislature may take away all discretion and fix a penalty absolute.