Article Text

Refers To Sherman Act. "The Sherman act, as amended, itself is expressive of a change in the public attitude and policy toward agricultural and horticultural pursuits in relation to other business activities and a recognition of a necessity, for the public welfare, of permitting organizations among such citizens, to enable them to meet justly and without undue advantage the conditions they encounter in necessary trade relations with other citizens or groups," Judge Clarke declared. "Nor are the Clayton act and many other recent acts of Congress, treating farmers as a distinct class, the only expressions of such a change in public opinion and the public policy of our nation with reference to them and their economical problems. "Enactment by the Legislatures of 30 or more of the states of enabling acts, precisely like the Bingham Co-operative Marketing act, is further evidence of the present state of public opinion on the matter, as is the attitude of every other agency through which an enlightened public policy may be declared, including the most recent resume of the state of the Union by the President of the United States. "Change Is Not Political." "The basis of this change in public opinion toward combination and classification is not in any sense political, but economic rather, and, in our judgment, it is because of basic economic conditions affecting vitally not only farmers, but also the public weal, that classification, based upon agricultural pursuits, is reasonable, just and imperative for the good of the entire nation and every citizen thereof." The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court, deciding that Samuel A. Waas was not injured through wrongful acts of the Ashland Day and Night Bank. Cashier Elam, cashier of the bank, had Waas incarcerated in the penitentiary on a charge of having brought a "run" on the bank. December 7, 1920, when the "run" was in progress and depositors were withdrawing their money, Elam was alleged to have terrified Waas. Waas filed action for damages. Liquor Decision Upheld. Assertion by a police officer, in his affidavit for a search warrant, that he had smelled or detected the odor of intoxicating liquor in a given house or locality, is sufficient, without a detailed explanation of the means through which he obtained the opportunity for so doing, Judge Settle declared in writing the opinion of the Court, in certifying the law in a commonwealth appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court against James Diebold, found to be guilty of illegal possession of intoxicating liquor. Frankfort will have street cars. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court in the friendly suit of the Board of City Council against Leslie W. Morris to test validity of an ordinance, exempting the street car company from improving its right of way. The statute, requiring a license fee of druggists for selling spirituous and vinous liquors, was repealed definitely by the prohibition acts of 1920 and 1922, the Court also held, in denying the appeal of John J. Craig, State Auditor of Public Accounts, who sought a reversal of the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court which favored J. W. Renaker, druggist.