RECENT CASES. 409 would be left covered with ice; nor was it shown that at the time of the accident she either fully appreciated the danger, or ought to have done so, or had any other egress from the building by which she might have avoided it. It was ad- mitted by the court that their reasoning would tend greatly to lessen the value of "volenti non Jit injuria" as a defence. Agency — Master and Servant — Liability of Master. — Held, that where plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a truck-driver in the employ- ment of defendant, but who was on that day serving another company under a contract which the defendant had made with the latter to furnish it daily with a horse, truck, and driver, defendant, and not the other company is liable for the injury. Quinn v. Electric Co., 46 Fed. Rep. 506 (N. Y.). Agency — Ratification. — Members of the defendant's school board made a written contract not under seal which they signed as individuals, but in the body of which they called themselves "members of school board of defendant." This contract was ratified by vote of the school board as a body, and also by vote of the defendant town. Held, the defendant town was not liable, as the con- tract did not purport to bind it, and their vote of ratification was ineffectual be- cause no contract had ever been made on their behalf. Western Publishing House v. District Tp. of Rock, 50 N. W. Rep. 551 (la.). Quaere whether this defendant was not liable as undisclosed principal to a simple contract made in the agent's name. Agency — Variance from Authority. — A letter authorizing agents to sell land for $2,200, "provided that the party could pay $700 down and the balance in one, two, and three years," did not authorize them to sell for $ 1,000 down and the balance in one and two years. Speers. Craig et al., 27 Pac. Rep. 891 (Col.). Bills and Notes — Moral Consideration. — A note payable to a mission- ary society, which recites that the maker desires " to advance the cause of mis- sions, and to induce others to contribute to that purpose," shows that it is given ui on sufficient consideration. Garrigus v. Home Frontier and Foreign Mis- sionary Society, 28 N. E. Rep. 1008 (Ind.). Bills and Notes — Statute of Limitations. — The statute runs from the time of the last payment on a note, Crockett v. Mitchell, 14 S. E. Rep. 118 (Ga.). Champerty — Effect on Right of Action. — While a champertous agree- ment between plaintiff and his attorney for the prosecution of a certain suit is against public policy and void, it does not affect plaintiff's right to prosecute the action in regard to which the champertous agreement was made. Pennsylvania Co. v. Lombardo, 29 N. E. Rep. 573 (Oh.). Constitutional Law — Associations — Forfeiture of Property. — The constitution and by-laws of the Knights of Labor provide that on suspension of a local assembly, its property shall be forfeited and shall vest in the secretary of the general assembly. Held, that this provision is void; it confiscates, without judicial process, property which is not derfved from the general assembly, but is held and owned by the local assembly absolutely. Wicks v. Monihan et al., 29 N. E. Rep. 139 (N. Y.). Constitutional Law -~- Criminal Law — Exclusion of Public. — Under the constitution providing " that the accused shall have speedy and public trial," and a statute that "the sittings of every court in the State shall be public," it is reversible error for the court on a murder trial to order the exclusion from the court-room of all but "respectable citizens." People v. Murray, 50 N. W. Rep. 995 (Mich.). Constitutional Law — Cruel Punishments. — New York code provides that a criminal under sentence of death shall be kept in solitary confinement in the penitentiary until executed, and that the court shall designate a week during which the execution must take place, but that the warden shall fix the day and hour, keeping the same secret from the prisoner and the public. Held, that legislature and court of New York having determined that this is not a cruel and unusual punishment, this court cannot say that it infringes on the immuni- ties or privileges secured to citizens of the United States by the fourteenth amendment. McElvaine v. Brush, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 156. Constitutional Law — Impairing Obligation of Contracts — State Court Decision. — Where the State court construes the charter of a corpora-
