Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 131, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 June 1910 — LEGAL INFORMATION [ARTICLE]

LEGAL INFORMATION

• Are the sureties on the bond of a policeman liable for an assault committed by him? This was the question discussed by the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. vs. Jasper, 120 Southwestern Reporter, 1145. Judgment by default for the amount of the bond was rendered by the court below. There was no allegation or proof of any ordinance of the city authorizing suits by individuals upon such bonds, and no showing that the bond was execut'd for the benefit of Individuals injured. The Appellate Court held that, in view of these facts, no liability on the part of the surety company was shown, and the judgment against it was reversed. A book agent sold a set of Voltaire’s works, representing them to contain fine reading matter fit for anyone to read. On a more thorough inspection the purchaser declared the books of a licent.imjs, lascivious and lewd character, no€ fit to be read in any family, and refused payment on the ground that the consideration of the contract was immoral. In St. Hubert Guild vs. Quinn, 118 New York Supplement, 682, the New York Supreme Court thought It no part of the duty of tribunals to exercise a censorship over literary productions. It is clear that no contract for the sale of a book can be declared illegal unless it violates the criminal law. That some of the passages, judged by the standard of our day, mar rather than enhance the value of these books can be conceded without condemning the sale as illegal. Courts will take the same knowledge as the community at large of matters of literature, and cannot fail to recognize that the genius of Voltaire has enriched many fields of knowledge. The rule against the sale of immoral publications cannot be invoked against those works which been generally recognized as literary classics.

In 1634 the parcel of land known as Boston Common was dedicated and set apart "for the the common use of the inhabitants of Boston as a training field and cow pasture.” In 1906 the Legislature passed an act authorizing the Boston Transit Commission to construct a tunnel under a portion of it. In Codman vs. Crocker, 89 Northeastern Reporter, 177, it was alleged that this would constitute a diversion of the property from the use intended by the dedicators, and that, even if this were not true, no right to make the subway could be acquired without a vote of the inhabitants of Boston. Both of these contentions were decided against complainants by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the bill dismissed. It was shown that notwithstanding the express use indicated by the original instrument of dedication, conditions had materially changed in the vicinity during the nearly three centuries that have passed since that time, and that the property is how not needed nor used for a cow pasture nor as a training ground in the sense originally contemplated. The opinion indicates a belief on the part of the court that it is not necessary that the land should be used for the specific things indicated in the original dedication, but that a use which is reasonably in accord therewith, as modified by changed conditions and circumstances, will not constitute a diversion. As against the contention of necessity for a vote by the citizens of Boston, it is held that, notwithstanding the legal title is in the city, it holdß it only as an agency of government, representing the people and subject to the control of the Legislature. The Legislature having granted a right not in violation of the original dedication, the grant is valid.