Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/256

 238 ^^^ VARD LA W RE VIE W.

In those jurisdictions where '^comparison of bands" is allowed it is generattf permissible to submit the writings to the jurj. Moody v. Roweil, 17 Pick. 490; Siate. V Ward, 39 Vt. 225.

Evidence — Cross-Examination of Witnesses — Intervenors. — Third parties filed an intervention in a suit. On some of the issues presented, the inter- ests of the plaintiff and defendant were identical in being opposed to those of the interrenors. The intervenors objected to the plaintifTs propounding, on cross-examination, leading questions to the defendant's witnesses on these issues. Neldf that the inteivention of third parties could not modify the general rule authorizing one of the parties to propound on cross-examination leading questions to the witnesses introduced by his adversary, and the objections were overruled. Succession of Townsend, 3 So. Rep. 488 (La.).

Evidence — Hearsay. — Defendant, having sold a pump to the plaintiff, sent an agent to put it in the plaintiff^s welL While the agent was engaged in setting the pump, it fell in and destroyed the well. Held, in an action for damages against the defendant for the negligent conduct of his agent, that a declaration of the agent, made two hours after the accident, that the accident was caused by his own carelessness, was hearsay evidence and inadmissible. Dodge et al, v. Childs et al„ i6 Pac. Rep. 815 (Kans.).

Homicide — Liability for Killing by Third Person. — Several persons behaved in a riotous manner at a horse show, and when the town marshal attempted to arrest one of them knocked him down and beat him. The mar- shal, becoming alarmed, fired his revolver, and accidentally killed an innocent bystander. The court below charged the jury that if the defendants made the disturbance with the expectation that the marshal would attempt to arrest them, and if he defended himself in a reasonable manner, then all those who assisted in knocking down and beating him were responsible for the killing. Held^ that the charge was erroneous. It is true that if the defendants, in prosecuting an unlawful purpose, should accidentally kill a man, they would be liable; but that the killing by another person was the reasonable outcome of their unlawful con- duct is not enough to make them responsible. Butler v. People, 18 N. E. Rep. 338 (III).

Immigration — Contract Labor — Clergymen. — The sutute entitled " An Act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States," imposes a penalty on any person or corporation encouraging migration of an alien under a contract or agreement previously made <*to perform labor or service of any kind." Defendant, a religious corporation, engaged an alien residing in England to come to this country and take charge of its church as pastor. Held, that the corporation was liable to the penalty prescribed. United States v. Rector, etc,^ of the Church of the Holy Trinity, 36 Fed. Rep. 303 (N. Y.).

The statute contains a clause exempting from its provisions " professional actors, artists, lecturers, or singers," and in view of this proviso the court said that the words ** labor or service of any kind" could not be given a restricted meaning so as to exclude the vocation of a minister of the gospel, but that they were intended to apply to all who labor in any professional calling not specially exempted.

Injunction, Preliminary — Unsettled Rule of Law. — On a bill for preliminary injunction by one rival water company against another, the legal right of the latter to do the acts complained of being in dispute held, that com- pUinant is not entitled to a preliminary injunction when the right on which he founds his claim is, as a matter of law, unsettled. Atlantic City Co, v. Con- sumers' Water Co,, 15 Atl. Rep. 581 (N. J.).

Landlord and Tenant — Tenancy from Week to Week. — Where prem- ises are let at a weekly rent, this constitutes a tenancy from week to week, and is a reletting of the premises at the beginning of each successive week; if, there- fore, at the beginning of any week the premises are in a defective condition, the landlord is liable in damages to a tenant who, during the week, is thereby in- jured. Sandford v. Clarke, 59 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 226 (Eng.); 8. C. 38 Alb. L.

J- 347.

This case is interesting as deciding the hitherto doubtful point that a week^ rental constitutes a tenancy from week to week. No authorities are dted.