Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/164

 146 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

Purchase for Value without Notice. — The plea of purchase for value with- out notice is no defence to a legal claim for dower. MiteheU v. Farrish^ 14 Atl. Rep. 712 (Md.).

For a collection of cases where the plea of purchase for value has not been allowed, see an article by Professor Ames, " Purchase for Value without Notice," I Harv. L. Rev. 13.

Rape — Consent of Child under Ten. — On a trial for rape, when the in- dictment alleges that the act was done " forcibly and against the will " of the prosecu- trix, the court errs in charging that if the prosecutrix be under ten years old, then the defendant is guilty, whether she consented or not State v. Johnson^ 6 S. £. Rep. 61 (N. C).

Trade Secrets — Witness— Privilege. — A witness for plaintiff testified on direct examination as to the uses and effects of " Moxie " or " Moxie Nerve Food." Held^ that on cross-examination witness could not be required to disclose the particular ingredients of that preparation, that being a trade secret, the disclosure of which would injure plaintiffs business. Moxie Nerve Food Co, v. Beach^ 35 Fed. Rep. 465 (Mass.).

Telegraph Companies— Negligence— Damages for Mental Suffering.— By the Tenn. Code telegraph companies are "liable in damages to the party aggrieved *' by an unreasonable delay in the transmission or delivery of messages. In an action against a telegraph company, plaintiff alleged that through unreasonable delay in the delivery of a message she was unable to reach her brother before h*s deatn. Held^ that the mental suffering thereby caused to plaintiff was of itself a sufficient ground for the recovery of damages. JVadsworth v. Western Union TeL Co., 8 S. W. Rep. 574 (Tenn.).

There was an able dissenting opinion. The same doctrine has, however, been upheld in Texas. Stuart v. Tel. Co,, 66 Tex. 58a

Trespass — Using One's Premises to the Injury of Another. — The de- fendant occupied rooms over the plaintiff's store, and, while she was scrubbing her floors, dirty water leaked through and injured his goods, though it appeared that the defendant used proper care. The plaintiff gave her notice to stop; but she refused, and asked him to move his soods. There was no evidence that either of them had any interest in the premises oeyond mere possession. Held, that there was no duty in the plaintiff to repair the floor, and that he could recover. Patton v. McCants, 6 S. E. Rep. 849 (S. C.).

Trusts ^Charitable Uses. — A testator gave all the residue of his estate to his executors, *' to be by them applied for the purpose of having prayers offered in a Roman Catholic church, to be by them selected, for the repose of my soul, and the souls of my family, and also the souls of all others who may be in pureatory.'* Held, that no valid trust was created. The trust, if any, must stand on the same footing as charitable trusts in England. It is no objection that the trust is super- stitious, and therefore void, as in the Englisn law, because in this country, under the State and national constitutions, religious beliefs and forms of worship are free so long as the public peace is not disturbed, and no court may say what is and what is not superstitious. But no trust is good in New York unless the ordinal^ elements of a trust are present. There must be a defined and ascertained benefiaary; therefore a charitable trust is invalid. Holland v. Alcock^ 16 N. £. Rep. 305 (N. Y.).

The court say that it was formerly supposed that charitable trusts were created by the statutes of 39 Eliz. c. 5, and 4^ Eliz. c. 4, although it has been since dis- covered that such trusts were previously enforced by chancery. Such was the view when all British legislation relating to the subject was repealed in New York, with the purpose of destroying charitable trusts, and they nave, therefore, ceased to exist. Undoubtedly the courts have been influenced by the fact that corporations may be formed under a New York statute for the express purpose of receiving funds to be devoted to charitable purposes, and consequently there is little necessity for charitable trusts. See, for an excellent article on charitable bequests, 27 Am. L. Reg. 213.

Trusts — Charitable Uses — Public Policy. — The courts will not enforce a bequest for the distribution of books in which the author describes the system of land- holding as a robbery, such a gift being against public policy. Hutching Mj^r v. George et al., 14 Atl. Rep. 108 (N. J.).