Page images

no suit can be maintained in equity to set | done. Admissions in equity against common aside a deed for breaches of an independent knowledge will not bind the conscience of covenant for which it was given is the settled the chancellor. The provision as to leasing law, and was also ruled in Anderson v. does not limit the lease to a 30-year period Gaines, 156 Mo. loc. cit. 670, 671, 57 S. W. alone, but provides for renewals at the end 726.

of such periods. In my judgment, it is folly Under these authorities, appellants have no to say that ground leases could not be made standing in a court of equity under the al. for a period of 30 years, with privilege in legations of their pleadings and the evidence the lessee to renew the lease for a like period adduced on the trial. Whether any ground or periods at some reasonable rental value, for mandamus, or other appropriate remedy and conditioned upon the placing of the villa reserved by the grantor, exists now or may residences on the lots as described in the deed. arise hereafter in favor of appellants as his Extravagant rents might not be secured for assigns, does not appear in the present case, these ground leases, but substantial annual and will not be prejudged by our conclusion rents could be secured, and to these rents herein which is that the judgment of the the Botanical Garden is entitled. circuit court is too broad in its terms, in that This cannot be decreed in the instant case, it should not have passed on any issue in the because of the pleadings, but I add these few present action which might have arisen in words, because I feel that Mr. Shaw has at other proceedings. It will therefore be re- least properly reserved for the Botanical versed and the cause remanded with direc-Garden a remedy to enforce this right which tions to dismiss appellants' petition. All con- he always had, and because my Brother's cur, GRAVES, J., in separate opinion, in opinion does not emphasize this view. The which all concur except WALKER and opinion states that there may be a right to WOODSON, JJ., who dissent in separate enforce the performance of this duty to rent. opinion.

I desire to add that there is not only a duty

imposed to rent, but that a clear right is reGRAVES, J. (concurring). If I under- served to enforce this duty, when there has stand fully my Brother BOND'S opinion be been a willful neglect. This right was first reaches the right result. I believe that his in Shaw, and by his will passed to the Boviews are my views, but for fear that his tanical Garden. Nor could the city escape very concise way of stating things may not this duty by showing an attempt to rent at fully present my ideas I add a few words. I fanciful prices. If the city can get any subbelieve that the fee-simple title to this 200- stantial ground rental for the use of the foot rim is in the city of St. Louis. By the described lots, it is its duty to rent. It first deed made there might have been broad should try to rent at reasonable or even rights reserved to Mr. Shaw and his as- low rental sums, provided it can procure the signees. By the second deed this first deed erection of ornamental villa residences on in this respect was shorn of much of its ap- these lots. Shaw intended, not only to beauparent potency, but whether this “sbearing” tify the park by these villa residences, but touches the rim tract might be a question. to get some revenues for himself and asBut to my mind there is one thing clear signees. His idea was to beautify the park throughout this whole transaction, and that and at the same time support and maintain his is that Mr. Shaw intended to not only make other charity, the Botanical Garden. He was this 200 rim an ornament to the park, but he looking into the future, and what the future likewise desired such ornament to produce will realize of his dreams, if dreams they some revenue for the other child of his crea- should be called, should be left open for tion, the Botanical Garden. To this end he realization. It is clear that the instant required that leases should be made, and the judgment upon any theory should be reversed proceeds paid to him in his lifetime, and and the petition dismissed. With these addthereafter by his will to the Botanical ed observations, I concur. Garden. In modifying his first deed he did not undertake to destroy all his rights or LAMM, C. J., and BROWN, BOND, and interest in this 200-foot rim. If he did not FARIS, JJ., concur in these views also. do more, be at least clearly left upon the city the duty to lease this rim in the manner

WALKER, J. (dissenting). I concur in the designated in the first deed, but he may have result reached in the majority opinion that limited his rights (a matter we leave open be this case should be reversed and remanded; cause of some peculiar language in the second but I am not in accord with the reasoning deed) to a suit to compel performance in a by which this conclusion is reached, and, case of a willful neglect to do this thing. It finding the divisional opinion of Commisis a clear duty upon the part of the city to sioner Blair more nearly expressive of my make an attempt, in good faith, to rent this views, I have, barring changes in phraseolrim property as provided for in that first ogy, adopted same, and file it herewith as deed, and when so rented to pay over the

my separate opinion : rentals to the Botanical Garden. Unfor

Appellants constitute the board of trustees of tunately the pleadings in the case here pro- the Missouri Botanical Garden, under the will city of St. Louis, the Attorney General, and the money so coming into their hands should the persons constituting the board of commis- be applied and used in fencing, improving, ornasioners of Tower Grove Park. This suit was menting, and beautifying said park. It was albrought to procure a decree authorizing the sale, so provided that after the lapse of three years under restrictions and in lieu of leasing, of a from the passage of the act mentioned the city strip of grond 200 feet wide surrounding Tow-should annually levy and collect a tax suffier Grove Park in the city of St. Louis. The cient to produce $25,000 to be used for the court below denied the relief sought and, on the maintenance of the park. cross-bill, gave judgment vesting the title in the In 1868 Henry Shaw and James S. Thomas, strip mentioned in the city of St. Louis, for then mayor of the city of St. Louis, executed a park purposes.

deed to the property in question to city of St. In 1867 the Legislature passed "An act to Louis and in 1872 Henry Shaw executed a seccreate, establish and provide for the govern- ond deed modifying that of 1868. These deeds ment of the Tower Grove Park of the city of are set forth in full in the majority opinion. St. Louis," the most pertinent sections of which A plat of Tower Grove Park, showing the strip follow:

200 feet wide here involved, indicated thereon "Section 1. As much and such portions of the by the numbers 2103, 2104, 2107, 2108, 4100, following described tracts or parcels of land, 4101, 4106, 4107, 4108, and 4109, appears oppopartly within and mostly without the present site page 234 of 1151 Mo., and on page 420 of 52 corporate limits of the city of St. Louis, to wit: S. W., and need not be reproduced here. bounded by Grand avenue on the east,' Arsenal At the time of Henry Shaw's death the land street or road on the south, Magnolia avenue, in the vicinity of Tower Grove Park was but lit. as now existing, on the north, and the King's tle improved, being devoted, in the main, to highway, so-called, on the west, in the city and market gardening, except the tract occupied by county of St. Louis, as Henry Shaw may see the Missouri Botanical Garden, which lay northfit to give, grant and convey to the city of St. west of the park and practically adjoined it. Louis, for the purposes of a public park, shall Henry Shaw died in 1889, and by his will (set be known and designated as the Tower Grove out in Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. loc. cit. Park of St. Louis.

222 et seq., 52 S. W. 414) he devised to trus“Sec. 2. The said park shall be under the ex- tees all real estate owned by him at his death clusive control and management of a board of “within the following limits, to wit, Grand avecommissioners, to consist of not less than five nue on the east, the road running from Grand nor more than seven persons, who shall be nam- avenue to the Old Manchester Road, and now ed and styled the commissioners of the Tower known as McRee avenue dividing United States Grove Park, and who shall be appointed as here- survey No. 1519 and 3294, on the north, Ar: inafter provided; but of which commissioners senal street or road on the south, and King's Henry Shaw, the donor to the city of St. Louis Highway and Old Manchester Road on the west; of the land for the said park hereby establish- excepting such interests and estates as I have ed, during his natural life, and after his death heretofore conveyed to the city of St. Louis, by his successor, in the direction of the Missouri two deeds, one bearing date the 20th of OctoBotanical Garden, as he may create the same in ber, 1868, and the other bearing date July 9, any devise or conveyance which he may be au- 1872, and do therein devise to the said city of thorized by law to make, shall be and consti- St. Louis for Tower Grove Park," and excepttute one member.

ing certain other property not in any wise in“Sec. 3. The following named person, Henry volved here. The property described in the Shaw, and such persons as he may select, shall two deeds mentioned was situated within the constitute the board of commissioners of said general boundaries given in the will as quoted. park. They shall hold their offices as such com- It was not otherwise specifically mentioned in missioners for five years from the time of the the will but there was a general residuary clause passage of this act, and until their successors devising and bequeathing all property of the tesare appointed and qualified. No member of said tator, not otherwise disposed of, to the same board shall receive any compensation for his trustees. The devise to these trustees includservices, but each commissioner shall, neverthe-ed the Missouri Botanical Garden; and the less, be entitled to receive for his personal ex- function of the board of trustees thus created penses, in visiting and superintending the said by the will was to maintain the garden, and to park, a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars that end to administer the other property deper annum.

vised to them for that purpose in the manner "Sec. 18. The said board is hereby authorized prescribed by the testator and deemed by him to take and bold any gifts, devises or bequests best fitted to accomplish his expressed purpose that may be made to said board, upon such of having for the use of the public a Botanical trusts and conditions as may be prescribed by Garden easily accessible, which should be for. the donors or grantors thereof, and agreed to ever kept up and maintained for the cultivation by said board, for the purpose of embellishing or and propagation of plants, flowers, fruit and ornamenting said park, and shall annually make forest trees, and other productions of the vegein its report a statement in detail of the condi- table kingdom; and a museum and library contion and value of all such gifts, devises or be- nected therewith and devoted to the same and quests, and of the names of the persons by the science of botany, horticulture and allied whom the same are so given, devised or be-objects." queathed.

Since the death of Henry Shaw much of the "Sec. 24. As soon as the said Henry Shaw property surrounding the park and garden has shall grant and convey to the city of St. Louis been platted, sold, and improved, streets have any land contained within the boundaries nam- been paved, sewers constructed, and, in fact, ed in the first section of this act, the said land, the city has spread far beyond the property; in and every part thereof so conveyed, so long the vicinity are numerous street car lines conas the same shall be held in fee by the said necting this portion of the city with others and city of St. Louis, and, in consideration of such making it easily accessible. Property around grant and conveyance by him, shall be exempt the park and across the avenues therefrom a rerfrom the payment of all state, county, munici- ages $40 or $50 per front foot in value, and the pal or other taxation imposed or to be impos- strip involved is estimated to possess a like valed under or by virtue of any law of this state The evidence is that $816,000 is a conwhatsoever."

servative estimate of its total value. The peThe act further provided for the issuance of tition alleges and the answer admits that, in bonds by the city in the sum of $360,000, and view of established custom and individual conthe payment of this sum to the commissioners viction now prevalent in the city of St. Louis, of the park, this being the money referred to the method of leasing prescribed by the deed in section 12 of the act, which prescribed that I of 1868 is impracticable and impossible.



Appellants contend Henry Shaw in the deed | capacity. It could not take a greater interest of 1868 reserved a beneficial interest which un- in the strip in question than the deed gave; and der the will passed to them as trustees for the the deed, properly construed, gave the title to garden, and, having offered evidence that the in- the strip to the city as trustee for the limited come of the garden from other sources was so and express purpose of enabling it, under its didepleted by the payment of general and special rected use, to add to the beauty and enhance the taxes, paid and to be paid, as to seriously in- value of the park as a pleasure resort. The terfer with the effectuation of Henry Shaw's beneficial interest in the strip remained the propplans respecting the garden, pray a decree au- erty of Henry Shaw, then the owner, as well as thorizing the sale of the strip involved, under creator of the Missouri Botanical Garden, and proper restrictions, either to the city of St. the deed is clear that his intentions were that Louis, if it desires to buy same for park pur- at his death this interest should be devoted to poses, or to private persons, the restrictions in the support of the garden. the latter case to be of such character as to be The trustee, the city of St. Louis, contends in consonance with the purpose of the grantor that the so-called condition in the deed is imexpressed in the deed of 1868. Respondents con- possible, and therefore that it holds the entire tend that the requirement as to leasing in the estate rid of all conditions, under rules applicadeed of 1868 is a mere condition subsequent; ble to conditions subsequent. This contention that performance has become impossible, and ignores the well-established doctrines that forconsequently the city holds the title relieved of feitures are not favored, and that the terms of all conditions and limitations; and on the city's a grant are not to be held to create an estate cross-bill the trial court decreed the title in upon condition if another interpretation is reathe city.

sonable. Courts ought to go to the intent I. The principal question in this case is as to of the grantor, and should not permit the mere the nature and extent of the interest the city use of the word "condition" to fence them from took under the deed of 1868 in the strip of it. If Henry Shaw had intended this strip 200 ground 200 feet wide which is the subject-mat- feet wide to be used for park purposes, he ter of this litigation. The intent of Henry could easily have said so. On the contrary, he Shaw must be gathered from the entire deed. specifically designated that part of the tract It expressly provides that the strip mentioned intended to be devoted to such purposes, and shall be kept leased upon long leases for villa expressly excepted this strip from that desigresidences in order to make it both "a source nation. The interest he conveyed to the trustee, of ornament to said park” and a source of reve- the city, in that strip, was conveyed so that it

might protect that part of the tract constituting The habendum clause is full of significance. the park and enhance its beauty by controlling The city is to hold the land in fee so long as it the character of the residences and structures "complies with the following conditions (already | immediately adjacent to it. This was the real expressly referred to in the granting clause) interest the city took directly in trust for the annexed to said grant, to wit, that all of said public. The authorities are collected in the grant ercept the strip 200 feet in width shall briefs of counsel. be and remain a public park, etc., forever; The provision of section 24 of the act of 1867, that no portion of said park shall ever be used to the effect that “as soon as the said Henry for any other than park purposes, nor shall any Shaw shall grant and convey to the city of St. revenue ever be raised from the use of any por- Louis any land contained within the boundaries tion of said park except such as may be con- named in the first section of this act, the said sistent with its said purpose and use and wbich land, and every part thereof,

shall revenue shall go to the maintenance of said be held in fee by the said city of St. Louis," repark through the Board of Commissioners. lated necessarily to land conveyed for park pur

“Fifth, that the board of commissioners. of poses, as provided by the first section, and could Tower Grove Park shall from time to time not operate to change or enlarge an additional cause to be leased the strip of land 200 feet in grant of a right or interest in land not given width surrounding said park in convenient lots," for park purposes within the meaning of the act, etc., and pay the gross rents to Henry Shaw but to enable the city to protect the park surand to his heirs and assigns forever.

roundings. It is also provided that in case the conditions The provisions of the act relating to the exare violated in the lifetime of Henry Shaw, the emption of park property from taxation are of property and improvements shall revert to Shaw; no consequence in this case. Whether applicaif violated after his death, then “the said estate ble or inapplicable, void or valid, is of no imhereby conveyed and all improvements thereon portance upon the question as to what intershall go to and be vested in whomsoever said est the deed of 1868 conveyed. Nor is the deed Shaw may appoint for the use of the Missouri in any sense invalidated by the rule against Botanical Garden or directly in' said garden,” perpetuities. The deed itself evidences the fact if incorporated.

that Henry Shaw's ultimate intent was to deThe correct construction of this deed is that vote, after his death, the income from the strip of the whole tract described only the 202.02 around the park to the support of the Missouri acres, as mentioned in the deed of correction Botanical Garden. This garden, long before of 1872 (i. e., that part within the strip here the institution of these proceedings, had become involved), was conveyed for park purposes in a great public charity, and the grant to it was the proper sense. The deed dedicates that por- validated by that fact even if there could have tion to such purposes and expressly excepts been otherwise any substance in this contention the strip 200 feet wide from that dedication. when made by a mere trustee as the basis of a That strip was conveyed to the city clearly to claim to the corpus of the trust estate; for enable it to control, as much as possible, the whatever estate the city took, it took as trustee. character of the improvements immediately ad- There was no waiver of any rights by the deed jacent to the park, and the grantor evidently ex-of 1872. That deed cleared some doubts as to pected that the erection, under proper restric- the applicability of certain parts of the deed of tions, of villa residences on the strip adjacent 1868 to that part of the tract conveyed for to the park would not only furnish an orna- park purposes, but expressly asserted their apmental border for same, but would induce simi- plicability to the strip here involved, and in lar improvements on the opposite sides of the no wise modified or cut down the estate restreets, and thus add materially to the beauty of served. The mention in that deed of the remthe park itself. Whatever bis hopes may have edy by mandamus in case there was a willful been, the fact is that he did not convey the refusal to lease the ground was in no sense prefee in the strip 200 feet wide to the city. The clusive. Remedies existing under the deed of city, therefore, under the deed of 1868 took 1868 remained unchanged. The language of


It is urged, however, that the will does not city is not the plaintiff makes no difference. devise to appellants any interest in the strip Plaintiffs' right to a just decree is not affected around the park. The first clause of the will by the fact that the legal title in whole or in ends all argument on this question. If Henry part is deposited, so to speak, with the city for Shaw reserved any interest (and we hold he did) their benefit. in the land about this park, that interest pass III. It follows that under our view of this ed under the will to the plaintiffs' predecessors case plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed; in trust, even if the residuary clause of the will and, if the city of St. Louis desires to acquire and the deed of 1868 itself be ignored in this the land for park purposes and add it, freed connection.

from restrictions, to the tract conveyed to it The record does not disclose any substantial by the deed of 1868 as Tower Grove Park, it basis for what is said in respondents' brief con- should be permitted to do so by any lawful cerning the statute of limitations. Therefore method it may choose. To enable it to exerthat phase need not be considered. II. The conclusion having been reached that versed and the cause remanded with directions

cise this option, this judgment should be rethe deed of 1868 reserved an interest in trust to the trial court to hold the cause in abeyance in the strip in controversy, and that this in for a period of 12 months. If at the end of that terest passed to and has vested in the plaintiffs time the city shall not have acquired the land as trustees of the Missouri Botanical Garden, in controversy, or have instituted proceedings the remaining questions have already been set for its acquisition, or if, having instituted such tled. They are identical with those presented in proceedings, the city shall not prosecute the Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 210, 52 S. W. 414. The charitable purpose to which the income the trial court shall proceed to render judgment

same speedily to a successful conclusion, then from the land in controversy in this case was and is to be devoted is the same as in that, viz., ing so, the court may hear evidence upon the

in this case as herein indicated. Before dothe Missouri Botanical Garden. The defect in questions of the size of the parcels to be sold the mode of administration of the property, and the sort of restrictions as to the building prescribed by the donor, is identical in the two lines and the character and cost and position

The power of the court to “vary the generally of structures to be erected upon the details of administration" is exactly the same. It is a mere incident that the restrictions upon

lots sold, and shall include in its decree findings leases and structures upon the property in- upon these matters, and spon the character of volved were prescribed in that case for the ben- restrictions generally, to insure "that the propefit of the garden itself and are prescribed in erty, when improved, will be pleasing and at. this primarily for the benefit of another great tractive to visitors" to Tower Grove Park and gift to the public. In this case, as in that, the otherwise be an ornament thereto, as contempurpose of the donor is the guiding star,' and plated in the deed of 1868. changes in details of administration, necessi

This decree should in all respects follow, as tated by circumstances unforeseen, ought to be nearly as may be, that in Lackland v. Walker, made when such changes would effectuate that supra, care being taken to observe the rights of purpose. Upon this phase that case settles this. the city and, through it, the public, that the That the city holds the title makes no differ: ornamental character of the strip 200 feet wide

It is the trustee for all who take under as a border for the park may be permanently the deed. To the extent to which the beneficial preserved. interest is vested in plaintiffs it holds for them and for the public they represent. That the WOODSON, J., concurs in this opinion.



rebut this the witness was permitted to testify McGAUGHEY v. STATE. (No. 3032.)

that she remained there under a claim of right. (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. May 6, Law, Cent. D 3. S$ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2019,

(Ed. Note.--For other cases,

see Criminal 1914. Dissenting Opinion June 26, 1914.

2823, 2824, 2828–2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Additional Opinion July 14, 1914.)

Dec. Dig. § 1091.*] 1. CRIMINAL LAW (8 116643*) APPEAL

Additional Opinion. HARMLESS ERROR.

A conviction will not be reversed on ac- 7. CRIMINAL LAW (88 75542, 804, 812*)—TRIAL count of remarks by the trial judge addressed -“INSTRUCTION. to the panel of jurors for the week cautioning Remarks by the trial judge to the panel of them against laxity, where accused was tried jurors drawn for the week during which acby only four members of the panel, and, though cused was tried, but made before the jurors he had not exhausted his peremptory challenges, for the several cases had been selected, urging he accepted them.

them not to treat offenders with laxity, are not [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal instructions, within Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. Law, Cent. Dig. 88 3114_3123'; Dec. Dig. 8 736, prohibiting the judge in criminal cases 116642.*]

from discussing the facts or using any argu

ment in his charge calculated to arouse the pas2. CRIMINAL LAW (8 589*)–CONTINUANCE- sions of the jury. GROUNDS.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases,

see Criminal Where, to prevent jury tampering, the Law, Cent. Dig. $$ 1731-1765, 1948–1957, 1974– court had some years before established a rule 1978'; Dec. Dig. $$ 75542, 804, 812.* that in criminal cases the names of the jurors drawn by the jury commissioners should not be

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, given out until the week for which they were to vol. 4, pp. 3663, 3664.) serve, accused cannot complain that the court 8. CRIMINAL LAW (8 1186*)-APPEAL-HARMdenied bis motion to postpone the trial for 10 LESS ERROR. days to enable him to examine the list of jurors, Under the direct provisions of Code Cr. where his counsel did not request additional Proc. 1911, art. 743, as amended by Acts 338 time to investigate the jurors, and he had suffi- Leg. c. 138, a conviction cannot be reversed for cient time to do so before exercising his right nonprejudicial error. to challenge.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. 88 2736-2769, 2770, 2772, 2794; Law, Cent. Dig. 88 1315, 1319; Dec. Dig. 8 Dec. Dig. § 1186.*] 589.*]

Davidson, J., dissenting. 3. CRIMINAL LAW (88 1092, 1099*)—BILLS OF EXCEPTION-TIME OF FILING.

Appeal from District Court, Hood County; Bills of exception and statements of fact W. J. Oxford, Judge. preserving the evidence heard on motion for a new trial must be filed before the adjournment

John McGaughey was convicted of murder, of court for that term.

and he appeals. Affirmed. (Ed. Note.-For other cases,

see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. 88_2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919, of Brownsville, Chandler & Pannill, of Ste

Estes & Estes, of Granbury, J. C. George, 2866–2880; Dec. Dig. 88 1092, 1099.*] 4. CRIMINAL LAW (88 938, 1156*)—New TRIAL W. F. Ramsey and C. L. Black, both of Aus

phenville, M. L. Arrington, of Granbury, and -NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.

A motion for a new trial on the ground of tin, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. newly discovered evidence is confided largely to Gen., for the State. the discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed unless abuse appears.

PRENDERGAST, P. J. Appellant was in. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal dicted for murder in the second degree, conLaw, Cent. Dig. $8 2306-2315, 2317, 3067–3071; | victed, and his punishment assessed at 10 Dec. Dig. 88 938, 1156.*]

years' confinement in the penitentiary. 5. CRIMINAL LAW ($ 938*) - NEW TRIAL - The evidence was ample to authorize the NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE-RIGHT TO. To entitle accused to a new trial on the verdict. We see no necessity for reciting the

facts. ground of newly discovered evidence, he must satisfy the court that the evidence was discov- There are some bills of exceptions and ered since the trial; that it was not due to his grounds of the motion for new trial, comwant of diligence; that it did not come to his

plaining of some unimportant matters. We knowledge before the trial; that it is competent and material and not merely cumulative or have reviewed them all; none of them present corroborative; that it will probably produce a any error. In fact appellant, in his brief, different result; and that it is not merely for does not present most of them. We will disthe purpose of impeaching a former witness.

cuss and decide those questions briefed, as (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. 88 2306-2315, 2317; Dec. Dig. they are the only ones necessary to discuss. $938.*)

[1] Upon convening the court Monday 6. CRIMINAL LAW (1091*)—BILLS OF EXCEP- morning, the district judge impaneled the jury TION-SUFFICIENCY.

for the week, being those selected by the jury In a homicide case, a bill of exceptions commissioners. As soon as he did so, and be. complaining of testimony by the wife of de- fore any case was called for trial, he said to ceased that the reason she remained in the home of M. was because he willed it to her, on the the whole jury panel: ground that the testimony was a conclusion of "That the people were governed by the courts. the witness, presents no error, where the court, That the power to punish was the thing those in approving the bill, explained it by adding of evil tendencies feared. That even in the that accused's contention was that deceased and business world the power to employ and dishis wife were trespassers in M.'s home, and to charge was the thing that secured obedience

« PreviousContinue »