Page images
PDF
EPUB

116

[ocr errors]

120

319

11

......

.

..........

Leloup V. Fort OL MODute ..................

......

eru V. DOSK............................

281,

487

[ocr errors]

Page

Page. Edwards v. Peterson......

.. 296 | Kennedy v. McTammany....... Eureka Vinegar Co. v. Gazette Printing Co............ 267 Kennedy v. Porter .....

Kerr v. Minnesota Mut. Ben, Ass'n .....

339 Falk v. Moebs.........

Kidd v. Pearson.....

449 Fath v. K 483 | King v. Miller........

263 Farmer v. State..........

King v. Ordway...................... Fears v. Nacogdoches County.......... 481 Kingsland v. Mayor....

454 Fehse v. Council Bluffs Ivs. Co...

Kinsley v. City of Chicago.... Fire los. Patrol v. Boyd........

431 Krone v. Kings County Elevated Railway Co.... First Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Gerke ...

202
Fitzgerald v. Hartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co.. 2:20 Laflin v. Chicago, W. & N. Ry. Co.....
Fitzgerald v. Quame.......

98 Lamberton v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co...........
Fitzpatrick v. Garrisons & West Point Ferry Co ... 307 Laplenie v. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co........
Ford v. School District of Kendall Borough ...... 467 Laihers v. Keogh ......
Foster v. Adams ....

340 Latz's Estate, In re. .... Foster v. State ..

312 Leather Manuf'rs' Nat. Bank v. Merchants' Nat. Bank.. Fowler v. Western Union Tel. Co..

276 Ledue v, Ward... French v. Parker,

237 Leloup v. Port of Mobile .. Fuller v. Fox.......

521 Lemon v. Beeman ............................... Fuller v. McDonnell.........

340 Leslie v. Lorillard......

Lieukauf v. Colman.... Galbraith v. Lunsford..........

520 Lippincott v. Lasher ........... Galveston Oil Co. v. Morton ......

181 Little v. Dougherty .... Gardiner v. Schwab...

158 Little v. White...... Garner v. Germania Life Ins. Co.....

399 Livingston County v. First Nat. Bank of Portsmouth, Gassert v. Bogk..........

391 Lomerson v. Johnson........ Gaston v. City of Portland ..

319 Loos v. Wilkinson .... Gingham v. City of Philadelpbia........

160 Lord Colin Campbell, Re.. Gaylord v. City of La Fayette ..........

463 Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Wright....... Gaunt v. State.....

103 Lynch v. Pfeiifer... Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Brooks....

259 Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v, Truith,. 497 McClelland v. Norfolk South. R. Co.....

410 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Coon ........ 138 McCord v. Western Union Tel. Co......

342 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gascamp..... 140 McCullough v. McCullough.......

159 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry, Co. v. Johnson......

McGlinchy v. Fidelity and Casualty Co........

259 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry, Co. v. Miller.....

263
Mackay's 'Will, In re.....

454 Gulf City St. Ry. & R. E. Co. v. City of Galveston.... 119 McNulty, Ex parte......

346 Gunter v. State............ 99 Mahon v.Justice.....

... 13 Gutridge v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co........

139 Malaney v. Taft........ Godfrey v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co......

456 Manhaitan Co. v. Phillips.. Goodrich Transportation Co. v. Gagnon......

175 Mann's Boudoir Car Co. v. Monarch Parlor Sleeping Gould v. Slater Woolen Co........

282 Car Co......... Grabam v. Lewis...... 342 Marsh v. Pierce.....

153 Grand Rapids E. L. & P. Co. v. Grand Rapids E. E. L. Mason v. Hoyle.. & F. G. Co.....

139 Maulsby v. Reifsnider.... Grove v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co......... 340 Means v. Dowd .......

Mee y. McVider,...

135 Haddock v. Boston & M. R.

80 Merck v. American Freehold Land Mort, Co...... Haden v, Lehman ...........

39 Mever v. Blair....................... Haines v. Schultz .....

82

Miller, In re.............. Hamilton v. Smith.......

159 Miller v. California Ins. Co... Hancock County v. Leggett.

458 Miller v. Minnesota & N. W. Ry. Hardenberg v. Št. P., M. & M. Ry. Co.... 200 Milliken v. Western Union Tel. Co....

419 Harper v. Williams ....... 382 Mills v. Armstrong......

51 Hawn v. Baughart.. 341 Minot r. Baker...

152 Haws v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Con

506 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Evans ....... Hemingway v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co... 199 Mondorf's Will, In re.

420 Henderson v. Gibbs...

Mosher v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Rv. Co....

35 Hennersdorf v. State.......... 122 Moynihan v. Hills Co....

281 Henry v. Heeb............

261 Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Beach..... Heuston v. Simpson..

62 Mudge v. Salisbury .... Herrington y. Village of Lansingburg 123 | Mulligan v. State..................

200 Hilton v. Tucker ........... 333 | Mullins v. Chickering ...,

440 Hobson v. Hassett... 262 Munro v. Tousey...

163 Hodge v. Sloan ..

Murphy v. Bolger....
Home Mut. Ins, Co. of California v. Roe, .....

Myers v. State.....
Howes v. Lynde.......
Hornborstel v. Kinney ......................

Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. State of Alabama... Hubbard v. Manwell.....

Nelson v. Harrington.... Hudson v. Ocean 8. S. Co.......

Newcomb v. Boston Protective Department......... Hunckel v. Voneitf.......

127 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., In re.... Hunt, Will of .......... 382 New York and Colo., Min. Syndicate & Co. v. Rogers

17 Hurley v. Watson... 117 Nicholls v. North-Eastern Ry. Co..

318 Hutchcraft's Ex’r v. Travellers’ Ins. Co. of Hartford... 68 Nichols’ Adm'r v. Washington, O. & W. R. Co.....

79 Nisbet v. Town of Garner ....

459 Inglebart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co.......... 98 Norcross' Adm'rs v. Murphy's Ex'rs..........

323 Invis v. Bolton....

Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Irvine........ Irwin y, Yeager........... 135 North v. Merchants & M. Trans. Co..............

135 Jachne v. People.....

517 Old Colony R. Co. v. Tripp.......... Jackson v. Castle ........

Osborne v London & Northwestern R. Co..... Jackson v. Meek........

420 Osgood v. Bander...... Jochem v. Robinson.

383 Johnson v. Asbland Water Co...

282 Palmer v. Mallett ....

521 | Park v. Richmond & I. Turnpike Co..... Jordan v. Board of Education of Taylor's Falls..

420 | Parkhurst v. Berdell....

399 Kane v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co.....

... 4.35 1

Parker v. City of Springville ........ Keith v. Walker Iron and Coal Co .......

363 | Pauer v. Albrecht..........................

212

517

330

417

242

339

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

..

.

[ocr errors]

.

.

[ocr errors]

.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

.

.

.

.

.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

People v. Kear

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Page.

Page. Peaslee v. Fletcher's Estate..... ... 203 Sherman v. Sherman..

326 Peck v. Peck ........

.. 116
hivery v. Shreeper .......

152 Peek v. Derry...... 273 Short v. Blount.....

75 Pegram v. Western Union Tel. Co... .. 303 Shuler v. Dutton....

385 People v. Angle.. 133 Silverton v. Marriott.......

268 People, ex rel. West Side Ry. Co., v. Barnard.... 440 Slingerland v. Slingerland.....

423 People, ex rel. Warren, v. Carter. ter.............

Sunith v. Cole......
v. Common Council......
Smith v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co........

386 People, ex rel. Mertens, v. Cook................. 397 Smith v. S

434 People, ex rel. Schurz, v. Cook ..........

397 Snell v. Levitt....................................... People v. Cignarale ........

Suow V. State.....

520 People v. De Kroyft.......

300 Société Des Mines D’Argent et Fonderies de Bingham People v. Gillson.........................

v. Mackintosh....
.................

48 People v. Hauselman....

280 State v. Boston & M. R. Co..... People v. Hawkins.......

111 State v. Circuit Court of Gloucester County...... 348, 370 People v. Jobnson... 132 State v. Findley ........................

457 People, ex rel. Burnham, v. Jones.

State v. Johnson...

200 156 State v. Marshall.... People v. King.......... 413 State v. Miller.....

16 People v. Krank ....... 417 State v. Morrill......

259 People v. Lake.......... 32 State v. Narrows Island Club...

203 People v. Lyons....................... 112 State v. Shaw.... ........

336 People v. McCarthy ............ 398 State y. Thompson,...

240 People v. McLean. 300 State v. Denoon ....

119 People v. McQuade...............................

ate v. Tilpey ........

179 People v. Myer. 138 State v. Towle,.

44 People v. O'Neil.. 173 State y, Vanderb

408 People v. Palmer ....

State v. Vav.........

15 People v. Phippin. 217 State v. Waldron ...

164 People, ex rel. Masterson, v. Police Commissioners . 418 State v. Woodruff S. & P. Coach Co...

136 People v. Reich..... 380 State v. Worden.......

186 People, ex rel. Twenty-third St. Ry. Co., v. Squire.... 440 Stillunan v. Northrup.................

117 People v. Wasservogle ...........

457 Stimpson v. Wood............... People v. Welch ....................................

St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co, v. Hunt..

360 People, ex rel. Wright, v. Willard ...

St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mackie...

427 People's Bank of City of New York v. St. Anthony's Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Rice ............

86 Roman Catholic Church of Brooklyn 133 Sperb v. McConn ...

454 Pfeferle v. Lyon

63 Pfeiffer v. Lynch ..............

116
Tarbell v. Royal Exch. Shipping Co.

. 155 Pharis v. Gere ....

Traver v. Torrance...

.. 220 Phillips v. DeWald........

267
Tate v. Tate ....
.....................

86 Phillips v. Ritchie County.......

347

Taubenhan v. Dunz..... Phænix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Sullivan

301

Taylor's Estate, In re .... Piedmont Electric Illuminating Co. v. Patteson's Adm'x 201

Teachout v. Des Moines Broad Gauge St. Ry. Co Pool v. Anderson. .........,

................. 478

478

Territory v. Manton Port of Mobile v, Louisville & N. R. Co............

Terry, In re................. Powell v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania..........

The Bernina....,

51 Prather y. Commonwealth.....

Third National Bank of Buffalo v. Guenther..... 105 Pratt v. Town of Wermouth..

Thomas, In re........................

407 Pratt Coal & Iron Co. v. Brawley .........

Thomas v. Musical Protective Union...

308 Pretzinger v. Pretzinger......

Thorn v. Weatherley.......

17 Press Co. v. Stewart .......

Throp Grain Cleaner Co. v. Smith......

178 Purdy v. Coar ...........

Tod Heatley v. Benham ...

Toplitz v. Hedden... Quackenbush v. Wisconsin & M. R. Co..

Travellers’ Ins. Co. v. McConkey ....
Queen v. Slade,.....

Trenholm v. Morgan.......................
Trevett v. Barnes.....

416 Randall v. Lautenberger.......

Twist v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.... Rank v. Grote

Turrentine v. Wilmington & W. R. Co.

202 Redfield v. Redfield.

410

Thompson v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.... 133 Reed v.

131 Reed v. People, ex rel. Attorney-General....

450 United Brethren Mut, Aid Soc. v. McDonald...... 501 Reg. v. Long...............

341

United States v. American Bell Telephone Co,....... 473 Reizenstein v. Marquardt...

462
United States v. Bornemann.... ............

337 Reynolds v. Robinson ..

417
United States v. Denicke......

207 Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Manchester... 312

United States, ex rel. Dunlap, v. Black.....

..... 441 Roberts v. Baumgarten.....

380

United States v. Hoeflinger..... Roberts v. Hawk

66

United States v. Rector, etc., of the Church of the Holy Robinson v. Fair. .......

455 Rochester, H. & L. R. Co. v. Babcock.........

177 Ulman v New York Life Ins. Co....... Roche v. flaumesser .

19

Undhejem v. Hastings..... ............. Rogers V. Murray ....................

419 Rosenthal v. Davenport....

83

Vanvactor v. State.... Rumford Chemical Works v. Uluth...

254

Virginia M. Rr. Co. v. Boswell's Adm'r... Rushton v. Thompson...........

322

Vose v. Muller... kussia Cement Co. v. Le Page...................

Wadsworth v. Western Union Tel. Co................ Sandford v. Clarke........ | Wainman v. Hampton..

418 Santa Clara Val. M. & L. Co. v. Hayes........

Wait v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co

156 Scarth v. Security Mut. Life Society .........

367 Walker v. London & Provincial Fire Ins. Co.......... 471 Scherck v. Travellers' Ins, Co....

Walsh, Appeal of.......

452 Seale v. Baker..

Waltermire v. Waltermire..

157 Searle v. Gardner... 264 Walton v. Coe...

177 Segelbaum v. Segelbaum..... 443 | Wands Phosphate Co. v. Gibbon.......

201 Selinas v. Vermont State Agr. Soc.................... ...... 363 | Warne v. Seebohm.........

256 Sewall v. Haymaker ..........

Warne y. Wagoner...

458 Sheehy v. Blake ..... ...... 462 | Warren v. Kelly.........

292

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Page.

199

57

808

18

24

Warren v. Martin.........
Watson v. Lederer.........
Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. City of Fall River.
Webber v. Piper...., ...
Weidekind v. Tuolumne County Water Co...
Weller v. City of Burlington.........
Wenhak v. Morgan................
West v. Western Union Tel. Co..
Western Union Tel, Co. y. Commonwealth of Penn

vania.....
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cooper.
Weyland v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co...
Wolverton v. Davis ................
Wood v. Ludlow.........,
Woodward v. Commonwealth..
Wheeler v. Sawyer......................
White v. Commonwealth......

. Page. 196 Whiteley v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S........ 401 487 Whitney v. Township Board.....

299 494

Williams v. Pul, Palace Car Co......
Williams v. Simmons ......................

316 Williams v. State..................

301 Wilson v. Doran.................

135 Wilson v. Sullivan... .............. Winchester v. Everett...

Wilters v. Sowles... 441 Wright v. Bank of the Metropolis......... 486 | Wright v. Church......

418 517 63 Yates County Nat. Bank v. Carpenter....

. 286 157 1 217 | Young v. Travellers’ Ins. Co.. 340 482 | Zebley v. Story....

317

376

Young v. Keller : :;

[ocr errors]

... 117

. 241

:::

17

THE ALBANY LAW JOURNAL:

A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE LAW AND THE LAWYERS.

The Albany Law Journal.

should go to the State, and not to the plaintiff in civil actions. One would suppose that the newspapers were ill used, if he put any faith in their

complaints, but it is a notorious fact that it is a very ALBANY, July 7, 1888.

difficult and unusual thing to get a verdict for more than six cents against a newspaper. At this very

moment we read of an English jockey, accused by CURRENT TOPICS.

a newspaper of pulling horses, recovering one far

thing damages. The newspapers are not oppressed AN esteemed correspondent sends a communica- | nor is there any danger of their being oppressed. A tion on libel, based on an article in a Rochester | They constitute a tremendous and nearly irresponnewspaper, copying and approving some views of sible power already, and are calling for more power the Michigan newspapers on the subject, reinforced and greater license. It is like the wolves demandby the opinions of the Tribune, Buffalo Erpress, ing to have the lambs muzzled. Society is pretty Chicago News, etc. Our correspondent is too long { much at the mercy of the zealous young man with and too mealy-mouthed to suit us, and he takes the pencil and pad, who goes about seeking whom he matter too seriously, wasting a good deal of ink and may devour, with an eager desire to get the start of time in demonstrating what the present wise and

all rivals, and ingratiate himself with his employer, well settled law of libel is. It seems that the Michi

and with no discretion, or inquiry, or even care for gan newspapers, to the number of seven hundred, reputations or probabilities. The newspaper “inhave formed a conspiracy to boycott every candidate terviewer," intrusive, impudent, slangy, reckless, for the legislature who will not pledge himself lying, is one of the worst pests of modern society. unequivocally to advocate the adoption of amend The employer too frequently cares for nothing but ments to cover the following requisitions: “1. The to give the news” ahead of the other journals fact of publication shall not in itself create the pre and put dollars in his own pocket. The reputation sumption of malice. 2. The word 'malice’ shall of men, and women too, is at the mercy of these be restricted to its plain, common and obvious mean scavengers. So liberal is the law on the subject of ing, and shall cease to be the cover and ambush of privileged statements, and so strict is it in regard to legal fictions. 3. Malice, in the sense of a desire the necessity of proof of malice, that under the or design to commit injury, shall be proved or a | guise of criticism or comment on public men and probable ground for its existence established by evi- public affairs, the license of the press has become dence, before any question of exemplary damages almost intolerable. We wonder how any man dares will lie. 4. When malice' is not proved by the run for office in view of the inevitable torrent of plaintiff, no damages other than actual damages filth and falsehood and scandal that is sure to be shall be assessed. 5. The plaintiff shall give secu discharged upon him. Give security for costs, forrity for costs. 6. Whenever a verdict of acquittal sooth! Suppose the man abused is poor and can't? or a verdict for nominal damages is rendered the It would be much more just to compel every newsplaintiff shall pay all costs with attorney fee. 7. No | paper to give general security not to libel, of action for libel shall be sustained unless the plaintiff course, such a law as these seven hundred crazy inkhas first made a demand upon the publisher for a slingers demand would be unconstitutional, but they correction of the alleged libelous publication, 8. In do not know enough law to know that. Ask for a any action for libel only actual damages shall be re retraction and apology! That is a very ineffectual covered, providing the publication was due to mis remedy! After a man's character has been cruelly apprehension of the facts, and the publisher, as soon and indecently assailed in startling head-lines, to as possible after learning of its falsity, makes a full put a retraction of three lines in an issue a week or and fair correction." The Chicago News recom-| two later, is a weak antidote to the potent poison, mends one other amendment, namely, that damages | A libel will be eagerly copied all over the country

VOL. 38 - No. 1.

[ocr errors]

in twenty-four hours; the retraction is never or very der to the gatherers and disseminators of “news,"
rarely copied; that isn't "news." That sort of the motto of Davy Crockett – “Be sure you're
apology reminds us of one which we heard Mitchell right, then go ahead.” In regard to damages we
Sanford tender to Judge Wm. B. Wright. In sum- fully agree with our correspondent when he says:
ming up for the plaintiff in a railroad accident case “So long as libel is not merely a wrong but a crime,
in which the judge was presiding, Sanford talked newspapers are not justified in asking that with ref-
with great power about “railroad judges sitting in | erence to exemplary damages libel shall differ from
railroad cases, with pockets stuffed with free rail- all other wrongs and crimes solely for their benefit
road passes.” It was generally supposed that the and advantage."
judge was not in the habit of paying fare. The
judge, who was rather slow of apprehension except Dr. T. D. Crothers, of Hartford, Conn., sends us
in regard to law, did not at first take offense, but a paper on the case of Otto, who was hanged for
next morning he came into court and at once pro- murder of his wife at Buffalo, 1884. The defense
ceeded to rebuke " Mitch” for his indecorous re- was insanity, and the pretext for the crime was a
marks. Whereupon “Mitch” arose, spread out his delusion that his wife was unfaithful. The ances-
hands deprecatingly, and with his indescribable try of the prisoner was marked by insanity, and he
grin, said, “I take it all back, your honor, I take appears to have been half crazy, partly by inherit-
it all back!” The judge leaned back, perfectly ance and poor living, and partly from hard drink-
aghast at his impudence, and that was the end of ing for twenty years. Dr. Crothers, who was called
it. The jury gave the usual verdict — as much as to examine him in jail pending his sentence, gives
the law would let them. "Take it all back!” that an ex parte and ingenious array of the circumstances
is what these impudent newspaper libellers propose going to show that he was insane and the victim of
to ao about it, and what is all that worth? Prove delusion, but he has nothing to say of the recog-
malice! how is it ever possible for anybody to prove nized legal test, the prisoner's ability to discrimi-
actual maliciousness “in the sense of a desire or | nate between right and wrong. Although he does
design to commit injury ?" No more is it possible not say so, it is quite probable that he does not be-
than in many a case of murder. Our correspondent lieve in the justice of this test. But in one place
very reasonably says: “To hold that when a man he lets out an expression made by the prisoner just
commits a crime he shall not be presumed to intend after the murder which shows that he did know
all which his act implies, strikes at the very root of right from wrong - he " talked of getting into a
justice, and is an absurdity so glaring as to shock all bad job."" There is nothing in this array of the
reason.” What would the seven hundred scribes case which shows that the prisoner was any thing
say to a law that when a man kills an editor he shall more than a victim of a bad temper and strong
not be convicted until a desire or design to hurt him drink. Two physicians examined him in jail pend-
shall be affirmatively proved ? The offender must ing sentence, and pronounced him sane and sham-
be judged by his act, and such is the wise pre-ming insanity. Dr. Crothers pronounces him “an-
sumption of the law. Pay " attorney fee!” mean- other victim of medical non-expertness and judicial
ing counsel fee probably. This is like compelling incompetency,” and compares his case to that of
St. Lawrence's executors to pay for the gridiron on the Salem witches. This is as logical as the mod-
which he was roasted. So powerless is the private ern physician usually is when he gets this “bee in
citizen against the press that we are inclined to be his bonnet” of struggling to save a drunken, bad-
lieve that an unretracted libel on him or one who is tempered, ignorant fellow from the gallows on the
near to him, will go far toward justifying the south- plea of insanity. For ourselves, we are growing to
ern method of taking the law into his own hands, believe that when a man commits a murder under
and demonstrating that if the pen is mightier than the influence of strong drink, especially as the re-
the sword, it is not so mighty as a stout cowhide. sult of a long course of dissipation, even though he
The latter proved the only efficient remedy against may be crazy from drink at the time, the best thing
the founder of the great New York libelous press for society is to put an end to his dangerous
fifty years ago, and it may prove so again, especially life. Not if he becomes insane through the visita-
if the seven hundred Michiganders bulldoze the po- tion of God, but only when he becomes insane
litical candidates effectually. The abuse which the through the indulgence of his own vicious passions.
newspapers so plentifully heap on one another do | If he wants to do so, the doctor may set us down as
not salve tbe smart of citizens who have no news. | an adherent to what he describes as “the mediæval
paper behind them. Now what we have written theory that inebriety is ever and always moral de-
is not intended to apply to high-minded journalists, pravity and controllable wickedness," and that this
of whom there are many. Such do not need any | is not “mistaking insanity for wickedness." There
such law as the seven hundred clamor for. The Trib is always a time in the lives of most men when they
une does not need it. No decent newspaper was ever know it is wrong to kill, and if they lose this sense
oppressed by black-mailing libel suits. A law can- | through a voluntary yielding to this vile appetite
not be enacted for scrupulous newspapers alone. for strong drink, let them be judged as responsible.
The law proposed would make a numerous class of And if necessary let it be made a criminal offense
newspapers perfectly reckless, and they would break to sell strong drink to one habitually. Society has
the small restraint that pow exists. We would ten- a right to take care of itself regardless of the appe-

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »