Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/526

510 510 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. dealing with the words ' have been stolen,' was to treat them as subject to the express limitation already created by statute, especially when the reasons for their limitation were so recent." Payne v. Wilson, ii The Tivies Law Rep. 179 (Q. B. D .). The interesting matter in this case is the way the court construes the various statutes. Helby v. Matthews, [1894] 2 Q. B. 262, and Lee v. Butler, [1893] 2 Q- B. 318, have already settled that the hire and purchase agreements enabled the " hirer " to pass a good title under the Factors Act. There can be no question but that the Factors Act of 1889 meant to brush aside any previous legislation opposed to its spirit; and as far as that point goes there can be no doubt as to the soundness of this case. Nor, on the whole, can there with reference to the Sale of Goods Act. The reasoning of the court, that this was meant to consolidate the law, and that the policy which produced the Factors Act of 1889 was not meant to be changed by that codification, seems unanswerable. Torts — Fall of Chimney — Rule of Responsibility of Ov^^ner. — In an action to recover compensation for the damage caused by the fall of a mill chimney during a heavy wind, the plaintiff requested the court to charge the jury that the defend- ant was liable, unless the fall of the chimney was due to inevitable accident, or the wrongful acts of third persons. This charge the court refused to give, but instructed the jury that the defendant was liable only in case he had failed to exercise ordinary care. After verdict for the defendant the plaintiff brought the case up on excep- tions, and the court held that though the instructions requested by the plaintiff were not entirely correct, they were sufficiently so to warrant it in sustaining his exceptions to the charge as given. It is thus plainly stated that the correct rule for determining the responsibility of the defendant is expressed neither in the instructions requested by the plaintiff, nor in those given by the court, but what that correct rule is, this court has failed to state in any intelligible form. Cork et al. v. Blossom et al., 38 N. E. Rep. 495 (Mass.). See Notes, 8 Harvard Lavit Review, 224. Torts — Infringement of Rights of Privacy. — Held, that where a person has so placed himself before the public that he may be called a public character neither he, nor, after his death, his representative has any right to object to the reproduction of his photographs; but that a private individual, independently of contract, has a right to be protected in the representation of his portrait in any form; it is a property as well as a personal right ; and belongs to the class of rights which forbids the reproduction of a private manuscript or painting. Corliss et al. v. E. IV. IValker Co. et al., 64 Fed. Rep. 280. See Notes, 8 Harvard Law Review, 280. Torts — Maintenance. — Action to recover on an agreement to pay solicitors* costs in a criminal action prosecuted by one H. Defence, that it was illegal as tainted with maintenance. Held, that as it was for the public benefit that a person should be entitled to prosecute; maintenance, however morally unjustifiable, was in a criminal action not illegal. Grant v. Thompson, li The Times Law Rep. 207, Wills and Wright, JJ. See next case, and Notes. Torts — Maintenance. — The present defendant assisted X. in a libel suit against the present plaintiff, growing out of transactions in which substantially the same libel had been uttered against the present defendant. Held, that this came within no recog- nized exception to the law against maintenance, and that the plaintiff had a cause of action accordingly. Alabaster et al. v. Harness et al., [1895] i Q. B. 339. See preceding case and Notes. Torts — Malice. — The posting of a placard headed "Trollope's Black List," giving the names of non-union men employed by the plaintiff, is restrainable by injunc- tion. The cause of action is not libel, but malice. Obiter dictum of Lord Field in Mogul, ^'c. Co. V. McGregor et al., [1892] A p. Cas. 51 followed. Trollope et al. v. London Building Trades Federation, 1 1 The Times Law Rep. 228. (Kekewich, J., Chan. Div.) See Notes. Torts — Malicious Interference with Business — Boycott. — The defendant, an association composed of delegates from a number of trades unions, issued circulars calling upon all friends to boycott the plaintiff's newspaper, because the plaintiff deter- mined to use " plate matter " in the make up of his paper, contrary to an interdictive resolution of the Typographical Union, and to cease buying and advertising in the said papar, intimating that whoever did not do so would incur the enmity of organized labor. Held, an action will lie for damage caused to plaintiff by loss in circulation and advertising. A malicious injury to another's business by an otherwise lawful act