38o
THE GREEN BAG
that it would and that plaintiff had no remedy in the courts of this country. The American cases Briggs v. Lightboats, u Allen 157, and Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch (U.S.) 116, 3 L. Ed. 287 and several English decisions are cited as precedents. CRIMINAL LAW.
(Former Jeopardy.)
Pa. —
A question of former jeopardy was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Common wealth v. Ramunno, 68 Atl. Rep. 184, which, though by no means new, is interesting. After defendant had been convicted and imprisoned for an assault, his victim died from the effects of his wounds and defendant was thereupon tried and convicted of murder. The court held that as there could be no murder until death of the victim and as in this instance he was still alive at the time of the trial for assault, the plea of former jeopardy was properly overruled. CRIMINAL LAW. (Right of Accused to be Confronted by Witnesses.) Ala. — The construc tion of the constitutional guaranty to an accused of the right to be confronted by the witnesses as including right of cross-examination, is the vital question in the case of Wray v. State, 45 So. Rep. 697, recently decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama. While accused was on trial for murder, a witness who was extremely ill was brought in on a cot. The court refused to allow a general examination on the ground that it would be in human and perhaps result fatally, but granted the request of the state to ask just one question. Accused was not refused the right to cross-examine but the Supreme Court held that he could not be compelled to take the risk invoked in doing so and reversed the judgment of conviction secured in the lower court. INDICTMENT.
(Defects in Conclusion.)
Mo.
— Defects in indictments which would probably appear very insignificant to the ordinary layman were held by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Skillman, 107 S. W. Rep. 1071, and State v. Campbell, 109 S. W. Rep. 706, to be fatal. The Constitution of Missouri provides that all indict ments shall conclude " against the peace and dignity of the state." The indictments in each of these cases omitted the word " the " before state. The opinion of the court in the Campbell case reviews quite a number of decisions from other jurisdictions and says: " It is not a satis factory solution of this proposition to say we know what was intended or meant by the con clusion in the case at bar, or that it was a mere matter of form. The proposition confronting us is not what the pleader meant to say, but what he did say, and do the terms used in concluding
the indictment in this case substantially conform to the requirements prescribed by the Constitu tion?" INFANTS. (Right of Next Friend to Select Tribunal.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — In the case of Matter of Moore, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 585, it appeared that one Albert Moore, an infant, had instituted suit in a state court in Missouri against the Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Defendant obtained an order for removal of the cause to the United States court, and plaintiff thereafter apparentlyacceded to proceedings in that tribunal by filing an amended petition, entering into stipulations, etc. Later on, an attempt was made to compel remand of the case by mandamus, it being claimed that the next friend in whose name the suit was instituted had no authority to proceed in the Federal Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the choice of tribunal was one properly devolving on a next friend and denied the petition for mandamus. LANDLORD AND TENANT. (Destruction of Premises by Fire.) Mo. Court of Appeals. — In Sedalia Planing Mill & Lumber Co. v. Swift & Co., 107 S. W. Rep. 1093, the Kansas City Court of Appeals adds another case to the long line of decisions bearing on the liability of a tenant for rent on destruction of the premises by fire, and holds that recovery may be had notwithstanding the fact that the building which was destroyed was the thing which was leased, and that the landlord had collected insurance for the property destroyed. MANDAMUS. (Compelling Remand of Case to State Court.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — An injunction suit was recently instituted in one of the state courts of Nebraska to prevent the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. from charging rates for trans portation in excess of those fixed by the state law. The state of Nebraska, the attorney general and the members of the state railway commission were named as plaintiffs. Defendant petitioned for removal of the cause to the Federal Circuit Court, on the ground that a controversy wholly between citizens of different states was involved, and that the state of Nebraska was not a necessary nor proper party. The prayer of the petition was granted, and the cause duly removed from the state court. The Supreme Court of the United States was then asked to grant a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to remand the case to the state court. This was refused in Ex parte Nebraska, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581, on the ground that the judicial discretion of the lower court was involved in determining that the state was not a proper party, thus precluding review by mandamus.
