페이지 이미지

tion of the medical examiners shall be in all re-10. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS m11(2) spects like ordinary civil actions, such cases are REVOCATION OF LICENSE — ADVERTISING not criminal in nature.

CURES-PROOF OF HARM. (Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Physicians

In a proceeding for revocation of a phyand Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8 15; Dec. Dig. Om

sician's license for illegal advertising under 11(3).]

Rem. & Bal. Code, 8 839712, the state need not

show actual harm already resulted from the ad3. STATUTES 47-PHYSICIANS AND SUR-/vertising.

GEONS-UNCERTAINTY - REVOCATION OF LI- (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians CENSE. .

and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8 15; Dec. Dig. Om Rem. & Bal. Code, SS 8397, 839712, pro- 11(2).) viding for revocation of physician's license on

Holcomb, J., dissenting. showing of advertising tending to deceive or impose is not void for uncertainty in failing spe Department 2. Appeal from Superior cifically to define what words in advertising are Court. King County: Walter M. French, improper.

Judge. (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Statutes, Cent. Dig. $ 47; Dec. Dig. Om 47.)

| Proceedings before the State Board of

Medical Examiners for the revocation of the 4. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS Om11(3)—REV- license of J. Eugene Jordan. From a judg. OCATION OF LICENSE-EVIDENCE — ADMISSI

ment reversing its order revoking the liBILITY.

In proceeding for revocation of physician's cense, the Board appeals. Reversed, with license under Rem. & Bal. Code, $ 839742, for instructions. illegal advertising, the inquiry and proof may properly include the competency of the physician

W. V. Tanner, Atty. Gen., and Howard Wain order to show his intent from all the facts terman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. Waland circumstances.

ter S. Fulton and Dorr & Hadley, all of SeSEd. Note.--For other cases, see Physicians attle, for respondent. and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. & 15; Dec. Dig. Om 11(3).]

BAUSMAN, J. The Medical Board appeals 5. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS m11(2)→Rev. from the superior court's reversal of its order

OCATION OF LICENSE-ILLEGAL ADVERTISING revoking the license of Jordan. The statu- WHAT CONSTITUTES. Rem. & Bal. Code, $ 839712, providing for

tory provisions involved are section 8397 et revocation of physicians licenses, does not pro seq., Rem. & Bal. Code, and more particularhibit mere unethical conduct, but is directed at ly that section which, defining unprofessional wrongful conduct.

conduct, includes: [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians' "Third. All advertising of medical business and Surgeons,' Cent. Dig. $ 15; Dec. Dig. Om which is intended or has a tendency to deceive 11(2).)

the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant 6. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS

persons, and so be harmful or injurious to pub11(3)-REV.


The complaint alleged as follows: Evidence held to show that a physician was “That the defendant is a licensed practitioner guilty of wrongful advertising under Rem, & of medicine and surgery under the laws of the Bal. Code, & 839712, and that he was not ex state of Washington; tbat he advertised his cusable on the ground of good faith.

medical business in the Seattle Daily Times of [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Physicians

Wednesday, October 1, 1913, and in sundry othand Surgeons, Cent. Dig. $ 15; Dec. Dig. Om

er editions of said Seattle Daily Times during 11(3).]

the latter part of 1913 and the year 1914; that

such advertising of his medical business was 7. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS 11(2)-REV. such as intended or has a tendency to deceive OCATION OF LICENSE-ILLEGAL ADVERTISING the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant -EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY - MORAL TURPI. / persons and so be harmful or injurious to pubTUDE.

lic morals or safety, in which respect defendant To prove the offense of wrongful advertising has been guilty of unprofessional conduct.” denounced by Rem. & Bal. Code, s 839712, moral The lower court confined the board to the turpitude need not be shown.

named advertisement of October, excluded its [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians numerous questions to Jordan as its wi and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. § 15'; Dec. Dig. Om 11(2).]

intended to bring out his ignorance of dis

eases that he advertised to cure, and at the 8. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS m10_IMMOR-|

BEONS Em10_IMMOR- same time permitted Jordan to show alleged AL CONDUCT. It is not merely unethical, but immoral, to

specific cures. The advertisement which the oney from the poor, the simple, or the ig- court did admit is as follows: norant by advertising the cure of incurable diseases.

"Bright's Disease Cured. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians “Another Case of the So-Called Incurable Disand Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8 14; Dec. Dig. Om ease Completely Cured–This Did Not Hap10.]

pen in Central Africa, but Right Here in

Seattle-Do You Know of Any Other Phy9. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS Om 11(2)-Rey sician Who Can Do It? OCATION OF LICENSE-ADVERTISING CURES

“September 24, 1913. "INCURABLE." The courts will call that incurable which

“I was taken down with acute Bright's Disthe present stage of knowledge so pronounces.

ease last February and was not expected to re

Pronounces. coverI became so dropsical that I could hard[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians ly move in bed. My condition became so desand Surgeons, Cent. Dig. $ 15; Dec. Dig. Omoperate that the doctors in attendance held out 11(2).]

no hope. Dr. J. Eugene Jordan was suggested


Em For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBLR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes


as a last resort and as I had nothing to lose and I board voluntarily furnished a list of all the everything to gain, I started to use his Glandu- publications. lar Remedies. I began to mend at once and in

va he [2] The case was not criminal by its na. three months not a particle of albumen could be found where before it was loaded with it. Iture. The Legislature had an undoubted gained back the thirteen pounds that I had lost right to classify this proceeding, and it did and my kidneys are as good as they were before.

so in section 8399, by providing that appeals “[Signed] Ad Goings. "8016 Twelfth Avenue Northwest.

from the board should stand for trial "in all "The above testimonial, like the many others respects as ordinary civil actions, and Uke which have appeared in this journal, demon | proceedings be had thereon." In Reetz v. strate the thoroughness and permanency of Dr. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505. 23 Sup. Ct. 390. 47 J. Eugene Jordan's cures of Tuberculosis, Asthma, Anæmia, Blindness, Bright's Disease, Ul.

L. Ed. 563, a statute was upheld which, even ceration of the Bones, Chronic Catarrh, Chronic as to previously licensed practitioners, reInflammation of the Bladder, Deafness from quired examination or approval by the board, Paralysis of the Auditory Nerves, Diabetes, Pro

the defendant vainly contending that this lapsus Uteri, Dropsy, Chronic Dyspepsia, Epilepsy, Epithelioma (skin cancers), Chronic Ery retroactive proceeding of forfeiture was quasi sipelas, Chronic Gastralgia, Hard Lumps in criminal. It was also held that even the Breast, Heart Disease (including Heart Leak

right of trial guaranteed in “due process of age), Hip Diseases, Infantile Paralysis, Insanity, Jaundice, Rheumatisın, Meningitis, Chronic

law” does not involve the right of a judicial Neuralgia, Paralysis, Locomotor Ataxia, Sci- trial. See, also, Hawker v. New York, 170 atica, Senile Gangrene, Spinal Curvature, Stra- U. S. 189, 18 Sup. Ct. 573, 42 L. Ed. 1002. bismus, St. Vitus Dance, Ulceration of Stomach or Bowels and most other so-called incurable

In State v. Snook, 78 Wash. 671, 139 Pac. diseases.

764, we held disbarment proceedings to be “Dr. J. Eugene Jorda:1 is a fully accredited noncriminal. .physician under the laws of the state of Wash

[3] 2. As to the constitutionality of these ington and is an ex professor of Chemistry and Toxicology of the Hahnemann College and Hos

statutes, this court has frequently affirmed pital of Chicago, Ill. He has practiced in Se it from State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 Pac. attle continuously for the past 28 years.

729, down to State v. Pratt, 80 Wash. 96, "There being a number of Doctors Jordan in Seattle, it is well to bear in mind the full name

141 Pac. 318. Nearly every question has and address of Doctor J. Eugene Jordan, 6191 been met, including that of class legislation First Avenue, Seattle. Office hours, 9 a. m. to land of delegation of legislative authority. 8 p. m.; Sundays, from 2 p. m. to 6 p. m Consultation free. Watch each Sunday Times for

Respondent presses, though, an uncertainty remarkable cures."

in the third subdivision of the section now The respondent to support the judgment involved. It furnishes, he says, no standard argues, first, that the complaint is insuffi- by which either board or court can detercient; second, that the statute is invalid; mine what advertisement offends, in support third, that the testimony by defendant's pa- of which he cites Matthews v. Murphy, 63 tients and himself showed that he had rea- | S. W. 785, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 750, 54 L. R. A. sons for belief in his advertisements from a 415; Hewitt v. Board of Medical Examiners, fair percentage of cures, and that no patient | 148 Cal. 590, 84 Pac. 39, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) is shown to have been harmed. The appel- / 896, 113 Am. St. Rep. 315, 7 Ann. Cas. 750; lant board combats all these positions, and Czarra v. Medical Board, 25 App. D. C. 443. claims at least a new trial because the court None of these cases, however, cover the presshould have admitted the other advertise- ent situation. The statutes were clearly less ments as well as the rejected questions.

| particular than ours. That of Kentucky proWhile we deem the lower court wrong in vided that the board might revoke the pracboth the last-named particulars, we see no

titioner's certificate if he were "guilty of occasion for a mere new trial, because upon grossly unprofessional conduct of a character the record as it stands the case can be de

likely to deceive or defraud the public." It is cided now. We will discuss it in the order

plain that here no acts whatever were speciof the contentions made by respondent

fied and any offense from advertisement was [1] 1. This complaint was sufficient. The debatable. Our own statute, far more spestatute has wisely allowed defendant a first cific, enumerates seven things that constitute hearing before brothers in his own science. | unprofessional conduct. The one relating to To say that such persons, unacquainted with advertisement cannot well be made more spethe law. must conduct these examinations or cific. To describe in express terms a faulty invite them with legal nicety will not do. advertisement is practically to instruct the We so held even on misdemeanor for prac

defendant how to evade it, and as to the ticing without a license. State v. Greiner, limitless variations of language, symbols, and 63 Wash. 46, 114 Pac. 897.' The courts up-verbal or pictorial allurements, no human inhold the less technical practice. Meffert v. genuity could possibly anticipate and forePacker, 66 Kan. 710, 72 Pac. 247, 1 L. R. A. stall them. The Supreme Court of Kentucky, (N. S.) 811; Munk v. Frink, 81 Neb. 631, 116 in Forman v. Board, 157 Ky. 123, 162 S. W. N. W. 525, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439.

796, has, moreover, clearly relaxed the seDefendant's rights were easily protected verity of the earlier decision, either by demand for particulars or by mo. As to the California or Hewitt Case the tion to make more definite. Moreover, eleven court did find insufficient a clause against


"All advertising of medical business in which ing common sense based upon a general view grossly improbable statements are made."

of the arts and sciences, we see upon its But it is curious that that court in the face every mark of the voluble humbug or decision did not drive the Legislature to an unscrupulous quack. Just when a medical express form. On the contrary, it held that advertisement may be offensive to this statgeneral language would be sufficient, and sug- ute, we do not attempt to say, but either this gested the very language since incorporated advertisement offends the statute or there is in our statite now attacked as insufficient. none that can offend it. This practitioner . Apparently this suggestion of the California spreads his pretensions over all branches of court was taken over by those who prepared this vast science, through dieases of the kidour law.

neys, of the ears, of children, of the nerves, The Czarra Case attacked a statute which and of the heart. Blindness comes within provided only against "unprofessional or dis his power, insanity, cancer. A cure of any honorable conduct.”

one of the maladies proved to be incurable [4] To us there seems a happy reply on would have made this man famous. Cures any basis to arguments of this sort. Under in several, as advertised by him, would have our statute the defendant is not tried on the raised him to a prodigy. Yet not one cure advertisement alone but on the advertise- is proved by any testimony that among men ment and his capacity, qualifications, or ac- of science would be credited for a moment. tions to fulfill it. The appeal to the superior | When we consider the zeal with which phycourt secures a trial de novo. In such trial sicians adopt new remedies and both follow a proper line of proof is not only the ad- and proclaim the discoveries of their brothvertisement, but the competence of the de ers, and the elevation that comes in this way fendant to do what he advertises he can do. to modest and patient investigators, defendThe issue then becomes like that in getting ant's attributing envy to the state board is money by false pretenses, which no Legis- but an aggravation of his bad conduct. lature has ever been required to define. The In spite of protection from the lower court crime is determined not from the represen- in the excluded questions, his examination tations alone, but from all the actions and was so humiliating that even his adroit and circumstances in which intent can be gath-capable counsel felt obliged to suggest to ered.

him at times the propriety of answering [5] Our law has not prevented a practi questions obviously fair. His explanation of tioner from advertising cures or inviting the his own theories is such that even a layman public to his healing, but only advertise- cannot peruse it without a smile. His tesments intended to beguile. It attacks not timony is one long flux of garrulity and evamere unethical conduct, but wrongful con- sion. duct. If from the testimony it appears that Nor are we impressed by some 20 withe either does not cure the diseases, never nesses testifying to his cures. Many of these has cured them, cannot cure them, or does had been under treatment by other doctors, not know what they are, the law has then a none of whom were called by the defendant, right to say it is advertising to deceive. This who must have known beforehand that they fully explains why the California court, dis- would be named. Nearly all the patients satisfied with "grossly improbable state were uncertain what their ailments really ments," which would have made a mere had been. Practically no proof was given in academical or legal debate, was satisfied to this respect, except that the defendant had suggest the present form for a different is- told them such were their maladies. He for sue.

his part gave no diagnoses from which scien[6] 3. Finally respondent contends that tific men could review them. Several plainly upon the whole evidence we must uphold the did not have the maladies they thought they good faith of the advertiser. From that evi- had. dence we conclude the very contrary. We [7-9] One additional question. It is said think, without considering also the rejected that granting the statute to be constitutional, advertisements, which were equally brazen still the lower court was right in ruling an with the one admitted, that nothing can be advertisement not bad, unless there is in it more clear than that we have here the lan- moral turpitude, and that while this is not guage of a charlatan. It was clearly proved specified in the advertising clause of the that of the diseases which he recklessly ad | statute, it should be read into it because the vertised himself as curing, the following are six other clauses aim at immoral things. wholly incurable: Bright's disease, deafness Counsel cites Forman v. Board, supra. This from paralysis of the auditory nerve, in- clause is not exposed to that rule. Besides fantile paralysis, locomotor ataxia, spinal this third ground the section names aborcurvature, and senile gangrene, while the tions, betraying of professional secrets, the others are incurable in the great majority of giving of medicines for certain purposes to cases. These things were established by ten women, conviction involving moral turpitude, practitioners in the defendant's science. He, habitual intemperance, and the personificafor his part, called not one to sustain him tion of another practitioner's name. In rein anything.

spect to advertising it excludes the idea of Taking the advertisement itself and apply-association with the other clause for it says what purport in an advertisement shall be voluntary and an element of willfulness or malbad. It forbids any advertisement intended ice is combined therewith, it was enacted for or tending to deceive. The Forman Case had

ada just double purpose, to punish a voluntary

offender and to provide, by trebling the actual before it a statute with nothing in it re

present damage, a rough measure of compensaspecting advertising at all, and the advertis tion for future damages not generally ascertaining offense had to be attacked under the gentorized under the cen. able; and the action is not a criminal or penal

action, but merely a civil action for tortious eral “other grossly unprofessional or dishon- dama

damages, with added penal damages. orable conduct of a character likely to de- [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trespass, ceive or defraud the public." Thus there Cent. Dig. $ 126; Dec. Dig. Om 46(3).] was not even an attempt to define advertis- 2. CRIMINAL LAW Om 568 – EVIDENCE — INing. However, we should not hesitate to TENT. hold this section good under the rule of as-,

In criminal cases intent need not be proven

| by direct testimony, but may be inferred from sociation too. It is not merely unethical, l the act itself and from the circumstances surbut immoral, to get money from the poor, rounding and attendant upon its commission. the simple, or the ignorant, by advertising | [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal the cure of what is incurable, and the courts | Law, Cent. Dig. § 1271; Dec. Dig. Ou568.] will call that incurable which the present 3. TRESPASS Om 46(1)-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENstage of knowledge so pronounces. Freeman CY-COMMISSION OF ACT.

In trespass for cutting trees, evidence that v. Board, 154 Pac. 56.

defendant lived across the street from the land, (10) Nor was it incumbent on the state to that the trees cut interfered with his view, and show whether actual harm had vet come to that he was seen on the land on the day of the any one through this proctitioner Thot istrespass with an ax in his hand and a ladder

leaning against a tree, the custodians being not material. The statute aims to protect | then absent, and that no trees or shrubs exthe purse as well as the health from quacks, cept those interfering with his view were cut or and the other burden, if cast on the board,

injured, defendant not testifying, or explaining

or denying his presence on the land with ax and would, through the many confusing and con

ladder, or his cutting the trees and shrubs, suptributing influences on the health of patients, ported the verdict for plaintiff. make proof exceptionally difficult.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Trespass, The decision of the lower court is reversed, Cent. Dig. 88 123, 125, 127; Dec. Dig. Om with instructions to enter a judgment affirm

| 46(1).] ing in the superior court the order of the




In action to recover treble damages for MORRIS, C. J., and MAIN, J., concur. trespass, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 939, allow

ing such damages, the required proof by plain

tiff is only a preponderance of evidence. HOLCOMB, J. I dissent. No one can

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Trespass, read the record dispassionately in this case Cent. Dig. 8 126; Dec. Dig. 46(3).] without being convinced that the advertising 15. EVIDENCE 76-PRESUMPTIONS-FAILURE complained of deceived no one and on the OF PARTY TO TESTIFY. contrary very strongly preponderated with The failure of a litigant to testify as to facts respondent that he did, in all the cases ques- mater

| material to his case as to which he has especial

ly full knowledge gives rise to an inference that tioned, accomplish results satisfactory to all he refrains from testifying because the truth, if patients. Respondent's general qualifications made to appear, would not aid his contention, to practice medicine are not in question. If [Ed. Note.-For_other cases, see Evidence, as a matter of fact-and this is almost pure- | Cent. Dig. $ 96; Dec. Dig. Om 76.) ly a question of fact—he did not deceive any Department 2. Appeal from Superior one, how can it be contended and adjudged Court, King County; Walter M. French, as a matter of law that respondent's adver- | Judge. tising “had a tendency to deceive and impose Action by Eugene E. Harold and others upon credulous and ignorant persons, and so against Louis W. Toomey. From a judg. be harmful or injurious to public et hy

ment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Afsafety?" With the professional propriety of firmed. such advertising we have nothing to do.

Edwin H. Flick and John A. Frater,

both of Seattle, for appellant. Charles R. (92 Wash. 297)

Barney, of Seattle, for respondents. HAROLD et al. v. TOOMEY. (No. 13255.) (Supreme Court of Washington. July 28, 1916.) HOLCOMB, J. Respondents claimed dam1. TRESPASS 46(3)—ACTS CONSTITUTING-ages from appellant in the sum of INTENT-TREBLE DAMAGES.

trebled under the provisions of Rem. & Bal. In trespass to recover treble damages, under Code, f 939, for willful trespass upon their Rem. & Bal. Code, § 939, providing for trebling land and the malicious cutting and injuring damages awarded for trespass in cutting down or injuring trees, it is not necessary to prove

of a number of their trees and shrubs thereon. intent by defendant, beyond proving the com The damages shown by their testimony rangmission of the act and its consequences, for, al- led from $400 to $1.000. The court, sitting though the act is penal in its nature and will be strictly construed to discountenance any treb

without a jury, found that the entry by apling of damages, except where the trespass is pellant upon respondents' land was willful, that he committed the malicious acts of cut- tion of guilt could be attributed to the failting and injuring the trees and shrubs com- ure of defendant to testify in his own behalf plained of, and that the damage done was (State v. Gustafson, 87 Wash. 613, 152 Pac. $300, which he trebled and awarded judg- 335), it was error for the trial judge as the ment therefor.

| trier of the fact to draw any inference from 1. The judgment contains the findings nec- the failure of defendant in this case to tesessary to support it, and the case, therefore, tify. That is the rule in a criminal case, does not fall within the rule announced in since the statute makes it so. This is in no Western Dry Goods Co. v. Hamilton, 86 sense a criminal case. There is no such rule Wash. 478, 150 Pac. 1171. Furthermore, ap applicable in a civil case. On the contrary, pellant proposed no findings, and none were the failure of a litigant to testify as to refused by his honor. The first claim of ap- facts material to his case as to which he has pellant must therefore be denied.

especially full knowledge gives rise to an in[1, 2] II. While it is true that this court ference that he refrains from testifying beconstrues the statute (section 939, supra) cause the truth, if made to appear, would strictly, and will discountenance any trebling not aid his contention. 16 Cyc. 1064. of damages, except in cases where the tres- IV. This case comes within the holdings of pass is voluntary and an element of willful- the following: Hey brook v. Index Lumber ness or malice is combined therewith, never-Co., 49 Wash. 378, 95 Pac, 324; Nethery v. theless the statute was enacted for a just, Nelson, 51 Wash. 624, 99 Pac. 879; N. P. R. double purpose, to punish a voluntary of-Co. v. Myers-Parr Mill Co., 54 Wash. 447, fender and to provide, by trebling the actual 103 Pac. 453; Simons v. Wilson, 61 Wash. present damage, a rough measure of com- 574, 112 Pac. 653; Bailey V. Hayden, 65 pensation for future damages not generally Wash. 57, 117 Pac. 720. There is competent ascertainable. Although the statute is penall and substantial evidence to support the findin its nature, this action is not a criminal oring of the court as to the actual damages, penal action, but is merely a civil action for and we will not disturb its finding in that tortious damages, with added penal dam- respect. ages. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove Affirmed. an intent on the part of the tort-feasor, any more than the commission of the act and its MORRIS, C. J., and PARKER, BAUSconsequences. Even in criminal cases the MAN, and CHADWICK, JJ., concur. rule is that:

"Intent need not be proven by direct testimony; it may be inferred from the act itself

(92 Wash. 257) and froin the circumstances surrounding and attendant upon its commission."


13278.) (3-5) III. The facts in this case are largely circumstantial. No one actually saw the ap-|(Supreme Court of Washington. July 19, 1916.) pellant doing the cutting. But it was shown 1. DEDICATION M19(5)-BY PLAT-RATIFICAthat he lived across the street from this land, TION OF PLAT BY DEEDS WITH REFERENCE that the trees cut interfered with his view

THERETO. of the waters of Puget Sound, and that he

A sale of lots, according to a plat and the

execution of deeds therefor by the owner of the was seen on the land in question, on the day plat, constitutes a ratification of such plat as the trees and shrubs were cut and despoiled, filed. with an ax in his hand and a ladder leaning! (Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Dedication, against a tree. The custodians of the place

Cent. Dig. 88 35, 46; Dec. Dig. Eww19(5).] were absent at the time. No trees or shrubs 2. DEDICATION Om 29—BY PLAT - SUFFICIENexcept those which interfered with appel-! CY-REVOCATION-“Park."

Where plat and deed of dedication contain lant's view of the Sound were cut or injur

no evidence of intent of plattor to donate a ed. If this were a criminal prosecution for block known as “East Park," for public purpos. the same act, and the jury or trier of the es or for any specific use, and where no public fact believed that these circumstances show

use was made of land, and taxes and special as

sessments were collected, and the land was ed beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of

| transferred by deed as private property, held, the accused, we would not disturb the verdict under Code 1881, 88 2332, 2339, there was nothor finding. The quantity of proof requireding more than an ambiguous dedication of such

tract which had been revoked, so that city could in this case being only a preponderance of

not claim land as public park (citing Words and the evidence, much less can we disturb the Phrases). finding. Moreover, the appellant himself did (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Dedication, not see fit to testify and explain or deny his Cent, Dig. $ 79; Dec. Dig. Om 29.] presence on the land with ax and ladder or 3. DEDICATION On 29BY PLAT-REVOCATION his cutting of the trees and shrubs. His BY DEED. honor mentioned this circumstance in passing

A dedication by plat of lands for public pur

poses may be revoked before acceptance by conupon the case, and of that appellant com

veying the land as private property. plains. It is argued that, because it is error (Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Dedication. to refuse to instruct a jury that no presump-! Cent. Dig. $ 79; Dec. Dig. 29.)

For other cases see same topic and KLY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

« 이전계속 »