THE GREEN BAG
NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS <Copies of tbe pamphlet Reporters containing full reports of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, at 35 cents each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given as well as the citation of volume and page of the Reporter in which it is printed.)
AGENCY. (Special Police.) H. Y. S. C., App. Div. — Samuel v. Wanamaker, 95 N. Y. S. 270, is the most recent addition to the very limited number of cases involving the liability of a person employing a special police officer for the acts of such officer. The New York City Charter pro vides that the police board may, on application, appoint a special patrolman to do special duty at any place in the city on the persons applying therefor paying for his services. Such special patrolmen are to be subject to the orders of the Chief of Police, and to possess all the powers and discharge all the duties of the police force appli cable to regular patrolmen. A patrolman so em ployed in defendant's department store arrested plaintiff without sufficient cause, but there was no showing that defendants ever expressly authorized him to make the arrest or that in doing so he was acting otherwise than in the ex ercise of the powers conferred on him by his ap pointment. Under these circumstances it is held that defendants are not liable for his wrongful act, and the court regards the officer as standing upon the same footing in every respect as any other police patrolman and not subject to the control of the person paying his salary. In sup port of the holding the following cases are cited: Dickson v. Waldron, 34 N. E. 506, Healey v. Lothrop, 50 N. E. 540, Hershey v. O'Neill, 36 Fed. 171, and Brill v. Eddy, 22 S. W. 488. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Crime-Commu tation of Sentence.) Tenn. — The provision of Shannon's Code (Tennessee), Section 7423, allow ing the board of commissioners of a county work-house, on the recommendation of the super intendent, to deduct for good conduct a portion of the time for which any person has been sentenced, is held to be invalid in Fite v. State, 88 South western Reporter, 941. The particular fault found with the statute is that it fails to prescribe any schedule of credits to be allowed for good conduct, but leaves the whole matter to the arbi trary discretion of the board of work-house com missioners, and is, thereby, an unconstitutional
delegation of legislative authority. A statute authorizing the commutation of a penal sentence for good conduct of a prisoner, such statute being in existence at the date of the prisoner's convic tion, would, says the court, become a part of his sentence, so as not to be an invasion of the par doning prerogative vested in the governor by the constitution. A number of cases are cited in support of this latter proposition, which seems to be well within the current of authority: State v. Peters, 43 Ohio St. 629, 4 N. E. 81; Opinion of Justices, 13 Gray, 618; State v. Austin, 21 S. W. 31; Woodward v. Murdock, 24 N. E. 1047; In rt Fuller, 52 N. W. 577; Ex parle Nokes, 21 Pac. 548; State v. Patterson, 22 Atl. 802. Somewhat contrary holdings are to be found in People v. Cummings, 50 N. W. 310; Commonwealth v. Halloway, 44 Pa. 210, and State v. State Board of Corrections, 52 Pac. 1090. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Due Process of Law Costs.) Cal. — A rather obvious attempt at deprivation of property without due process of law is forestalled by the holding in Meacham v. Bear Valley Irrigation Co., 79 Pacific Reporter, 281. A rule of court fixed the compensation of the official reporter at a certain amount per day, and declared that the per diem compensation so fixed should, upon the opening of court, and before the taking of notes by the reporter, be de posited, one-half thereof by each of the respec tive parties. Defendant in ejectment failed to comply with an order requiring one-half of the reporter's fees to be deposited, and judgment was entered for plaintiff without trial. This proceed ing is very properly held to be within the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law. Failure or refusal of a defendant to pay the costs of an action, or any portion thereof, in advance of the trial, does not, says the court, authorize the trial court to deprive him of his defense to the action. In support of the holding, the cases of Foley, v. Foley, s2 Pac- I22> and Younger v. Superior Court, 69 Pac. 485, are cited.
