Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/376

360 36o HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The English law has been steadily tending of late years toward the abandonment of the old rule that every covenant not to engage in a particular trade was void if unlim- ited as to space. Pollock on Contracts, p. 315. This case definitely discards the old rule, and lays down as the test of validity : What is a reasonable restraint with refer- ence to the particular case ? The opinions of the judges are interesting because they show clearly the gradual development of the law as to such contracts, and the steadily increasing tendency toward the result now finally determined upon by the House of Lords. See Notes. Corporations. — Ultra Vires Acts. — Held, that the alienation by a corporation of a pipe-line in which a great part of its capital was invested, and the possession of which was necessary for the carrying on of its business, was ultra vires, and might be restrained at the suit of a single stockholder. Carter v. Producers^ &^ Refiners' Oil Co., 30 Atl. Rep. 391 ( Pa.). The above decision would seem to be correct. It has always been held that aliena- tion by a railroad company of its road-bed is ultra vires, and the present case is in line with that. Criminal Law — Extradition — Conviction of Crime not specified. — Held, under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, which provides for the extradition of persons " charged with the crime of murder or assault with intent to commit murder," a person extradited on the charge of " assault with intent to commit murder" cannot be convicted of an assault with intent to do great bodily harm. People ex rel. Young v. Stout, 30 N. Y. Supp. 898. It was urged that a man could be extradited for one offence and convicted of another minor offence included within the one for which he was extradited. In this case, however, the prisoner could not have been extradited at all for the minor offence of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm. The court say that to allow a conviction for the minor offence under these circumstances would be a breach of faith and a violation of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States by which extradition for the major offence was made possible. The precise question raised here is thought to be rather a novel one. Criminal Law — Homicide — Insanity — Irresistible Impulse. — Instruc- tions held correct, that if defendant, by reason of insanity, was rendered incapable of distinguishing right from wrong as applied to his act, or if by reason of an insane de- lusion he was deprived of his will-power, and was compelled by an irresistible impulse to do the act, then he is excused. Wilcox v. State, 28 S. W. Rep. 312 (Tenn.). This, it is submitted, is the correct view. Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577. The de- cisions in this country are in conflict as to whether an irresistible impulse will excuse from crime, when defendant knew the difference between right and wrong. Beale's Cases on Criminal Law, 254, Note on the Test of Insanity. But if the impulse was really irresistible, and was caused by a diseased state of mind, there seems to be no good reason why defendant should be held responsible, even though he knew right from wrong, when he was unable to choose between right and wrong. See, contra, 2 Harvard Law Review, 387. Criminal Law — Homicide — Self-defence. — The defendant, knowing that his life had been threatened, armed himself and went where deceased was. Held, that although he went in the expectation of being attacked, he was not deprived of the right to kill in self-defence. State v. Evans, 28 S. W. Rep. 8 (Mo.). See Notes. Criminal Law — Libel — Responsibility of a Newspaper Publisher. — In a prosecution for libel against the publisher of a newspaper, held, that it is no defence for the publisher to show that the article was published in his paper without his consent and knowledge, unless it further appears that the publication did not occur through any negligence or want of ordinary care on his part. State v. Mason, 38 Pac. 138 (Ore.). The publisher gives his agents the power to publish articles, and if through his want of care such articles are pubhshed, he should be held criminally liable. Mechem on Agency, § 746. The case follows Commonwealth v. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199; and is law in England by Statute 6 and 7 Vict. c. 96. The English law, before the statute, was even more severe. Rex v. Giitch, i Moody and M. 433. See, also, 3 Albany Law Journal, 46; 64 Law Times, 95. Evidence — Judicial Notice. — Testimony was given that a crime was committed in Moniteau County, three miles from California. Held, this is evidence that the crime was conrimitted in Missouri, for the court will take judicial notice that Moniteau County is one of the counties of Missouri, and that California is a town in Moniteau County. State v. Pettningion, 27 S. W. Rep. 1106 (Mo.). In this country, if a place is situated within a given jurisdiction, the court of that