Evening Republican, Volume 17, Number 155, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 June 1913 — NOVEL LAW POINTS [ARTICLE]

NOVEL LAW POINTS

Prosecutor’s Contract Declared Against Public Policy. Woman Was Enjoined—Verdict of Lone Star State Judge Who Traveled on a Railroad Pass Satisfied His Conscience. Chicago.—ln a case beforii the supreme court of Michigan involving the division of the profits of a law partnership, it appeared that the plaintiff was an attorney with an established practice while the defendant was a young lawyer with no experience. Under an agreement by the partners, when the plaintiff was prosecuting attorney he promised not to run for office again, but to assist the defendant to be elected. After defendant was elected it was agreed that the salary of the defendant as prosecuting attorney should be divided between the lawyers. The court holds that such a partnership contract is against public policy, because it is in effect an assignment of the earned emoluments of a public office, and is void and unenforclble. In support of a recent application in the supreme court in Brooklyn by a wife for an injunctoln against another woman to restrain her; from alienating the affections of the plaintiff’s hus-. band a decision of the Texas court of appeals was cited. This case arose out of a writ of habeas corpus sued out by a man sent to jail for contempt of coprt so violating an injunction prohibiting him from associating with the plaintiff’s wife. The court upheld the injunction and -aid; "The suit was brought for damages on an alleged partial alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s wife, and it was averred that on account of the past conduct of the defendant in that suit plaintiff was apprehensive and had just grounds to fear that by the continuance thereof the wife’s affections would be entirely alienated. There would consequently be a breach and destruction of the matrimonial contract existing between the parties by which plaintiff would entirely lose the affections and services of his said wife. These, it must be conceded, were of peculiar value to the plaintiff; and it would seem that he would have a right to invoke the restraining power of a court of equity to prevent the utter annihilation of his wife’s affections and the utter destruction of the marital agreement” The court held that the ir junction did not violate unlawfully the defendant’s right as a citizen or unlawfully interfere with his freedom of speech. A judgment rendered by a Texas justice of the peace, as reported by Law Notes, is in part as follows: “In the first place I am going to rule right as I see it regardless of the fact that the plaintiff Johnson is a friend of mine, and the railroad company has in the past issued me a pass and that I hope to again ride on their road free. There are two things evident from the evidence. There is a lie out somewhere, and a number of turkeys were killed on the G. H. & 8. A. Railroad company’s right of way. The quail seen by the witnesses Ayers and Scott must have been large ones, or the chicken hens seen by the witness Johnson must hate been small ones. But, be that as it may, the number of turkeys killed were about 50, and they were not fully grown. Again, both parties were negligent—that is a fact. The company for allowing grass to grow on its right of way, and the plaintiff for allowing his turkeys to run upon the railway property, although there is no' law against turkeys running loose. Now, if both the company and Mr. Johnson were at fault I do not' see how either could object to paying for his mistake. Therefore, the railroad will pay Mr. Johnson for killing his turkeys the sum of sls, and Mr. Johnson will pay the costs of the suit. In rendering this judgment I have no apologies to make and my conscience is clear, as I believe I have done right. If I have made a mistake I have done so unconsciously, but after weighing all the evidence I feel that I am for once right Do you? J. Littleton Tally, J. P. Pre. No. 1, Goliad county, Texas.**