so
The Green Bag
giving bond for her support, is held in Griffin v. Griffin, 130 Ga. 527, 61 S. E. 16, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 937, not to be able to have the mar riage declared void as procured by duress.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS SION. (Investigations.) U. S. Sup. Ct.—In Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (December, 1908, 29 Sup. Ct. R. 115), it was held that witnesses cannot be required to testify before the Interstate Commerce Commission except in connection with com plaints for violation of the Interstate Com merce Act (Act February 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]) or in the investigation by the commission of subjects that might have been made the object of complaint, these being the only matters contemplated by the provision of section 12 of that act, giving the commission power to require testimony "for the purposes of this act." This power cannot be exercised by the commission in performing its duty under that section to keep itself informed as to the manner and method in which the busi ness of common carriers is conducted, nor in connection with the enforcement of the requirement of section 20 respecting reports by carriers, nor to aid the commission in recommending, pursuant to section 21, addi tional legislation to Congress.
DURESS. (Resignation of public officer voidable.) Minn.—A resignation of public office, procured by coercion and duress, is held, in State ex rel. Young v. Ladeen, 104 Minn. 252, 116 N. W. 486, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1058, to be voidable, and subject to repudia tion. EMINENT DOMAIN. (Second trial as sub versive of justice.) Wash.—A municipality instituted condemnation proceedings against a railroad corporation to enable it to extend an avenue across the right of way. The judgment for the railway was so large that the municipality abandoned the proceeding. Shortly thereafter, it sought to extend another avenue just six inches south of the first one across the track and to have damages adjudi cated by the court, and thus to obtain a new trial on substantially the same issues. In Northern Pac. Ry. Co. et al. v. City of George town, 97 Pac. Rep. 659, the Supreme Court of Washington held that to permit the second trial would not only be subversive of justice, JUDGES. (Compensation for extra time.) but would be making a farce of judicial pro Wis.—A Wisconsin statute provides that a ceedings, by allowing a litigant to play hide and seek with the judgment of a court by county judge shall receive $5 per day for accepting such judgment if it suited him, by each day actually engaged in matters not rejecting it if it did not, and commencing appertaining to probate business. In Hoff another action involving the same issues, man v. Lincoln County, 118 N. W. Rep. 850, and so on ad infinitum, until he was satisfied it appeared that respondent had taken six hours as the basis of a day, and sought to with the result. recover one sixth of $5, or 83 cents, for each GARNISHMENT. (Remarried man's hour in excess of that time. On one day he wages may be garnished for alimony.) Mo.— worked 7J hours, and on another 13$. The The wife of one Anderson secured a divorce Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that no from him and alimony of $25 a month. amount in excess of $5 per day could be Anderson afterward took another wife, and recovered, remarking that the word "day," upon his failure to pay the alimony his former as used in the statute, meant a calendar day, wife garnished his wages, which amounted to and that a judge is not entitled to recover $75 a month. In Anderson v. Norvell-Shap- more than the allowance for one day. leigh Hardware Co. et al., 113 S. W. Rep. 733, LANDLORD AND TENANT. (Non-liabil the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that the wages were not exempt. The hardship, if ity of lessor when there is no covenant to any, was not created by the law, but was repair.) Mo.—The owner of a building leased for a boarding house, without covenant to brought upon defendant by his own volun tary acts and wrongful conduct. His marital repair, who undertakes to put new furnaces pledge to his wife was that he would support in the building, and who removes the old and maintain her as long as they both should ones, is held, in Glenn v. Hill, 210 Mo. 291, live. He avers his inability to support two 109 S. W. 27, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 699, not families. Why assume the burden of sup to be liable to occupants of rooms in the porting two families if he is not able or willing building for injuries caused by the cold, merely because he fails to put in the new to discharge it?
