Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/60

 Rh

39

hire anyone, whether by a drawing or a statue, in such a way as to hold him up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, as Mr. Lindley Sambourne found not long ago when he drew a member of Parliament in a fashion which would have blasted the fairest reputation of a portrait painter. Burn ing a man in effigy, says a great authority, may be a libel; and if burning, why not pillorying? Were the showman to put his effigy in the Chamber of Horrors it might furnish a ground for claiming damages. But, in fact, the image is to be put in the most public part of the exhibition, where the timorous can see it without alarm, and the thrifty may examine it without expense. Placed in the midst of the royal and saintly company to which we have referred, if he be graced with Hyperion's curls, the front of Jove himself, the eye of Mars, or merely presented as he is, or as near thereto as the moulder can conveniently approach, of what can this objector complain? He loathes the celebrity which makes his features valuable property, and would probably shrink away from public notice for a time. But the law takes no account of a man's modesty. Until quite recently it placed no price upon a woman's."

defendants were not liable for the loss; that in transmitting the information which they had obtained they completely fulfilled the terms of their contract with the plaintiff; that the accuracy of the informa tion so obtained was at the risk of the plaintiff; that in making the report, Burchard was not acting within the scope of his authority as agent of the defendant; that he was not employed as the agent of either party in reference to the discounts which he caused to be effected; that he was merely an agent under the agreement of subscription to furnish infor mation; that the defendants were agents of the plaintiff, and as it appeared from the agreement that the service required could not be rendered by the agent, but must mainly be rendered by subagents, the defendants were not liable for the errors or misconduct of the subagent, if they had used due care in his selection.

All this comment is very sound, but we do not learn how the case came out. The other action was against the authorities of the British Museum for a libel contained in a book on its shelves. There was a recovery, the jury finding that the authorities had been negligent. Is it possible that they must read every book through, before they safely take it in? This would seem a somewhat onerous requirement. The plaintiff in this case was an American woman, formerly known as Mrs. Victoria Woodhull.

Criminal Liability of Drinker. — In State v. Cullins (Kans.), 24 L. R. A. 212. it was held that the purchaser of intoxicating liquor, sold illegally, is not a participant with the seller, and not punishable as an offender. The court distinguish between mala prohibita and mala in se, and cite State v. Rand, 51 N. H. 361; 12 Am. Rep. 127; Com. v. Willard, 22 Pick. 476: Wakeman v. Chambers, 69 Iowa, 169; 58 Am. Rep. 218; Harney v. State, 8 Lea, 113. The principle is like that which screens the woman in cases of abortion. Verily the law is tender toward the drunkard in criminal jurisprudence.

Mercantile Agencies — Liability to Sub scriber. — In City Nat. Bank v. Dun, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, second district, the defendants, who conducted a mercantile agency, agreed at the request of the plaintiff, in order to aid it in determin ing the propriety of giving credit, to communicate to the plaintiff such information as they might possess concerning the mercantile credit of merchants, etc.; that such information should be obtained and com municated by subagents appointed in behalf of the plaintiff by the defendants; and stipulated the de fendants should not be responsible for any loss caused by the neglect of any such subagent, and that the defendants should in no manner guarantee the actual verity or correctness of any such informa tion. In consequence of a request for such infor mation concerning Kitts of Oswego, a report con cerning him was made up by Burchard, the defendants' agent at that place, and was by him sent to the defendants, and by them to the plaintiff. Burchard and Kitts were connected in business, and for the purpose of promoting his own interests, Burchard made false statements in that report. The plaintiff, relying on the report, discounted the acceptances of Kitts, which were valueless. It was held that the

Res Gestae. — It seems that the tendency of the courts is toward leniency in the admission of proof of facts and circumstances in criminal cases, savoring of a self-serving nature and so far separated from the main transaction in time as not to be strictly of the nature of rts gcslcc. In Jones v. State (Alabama), 15 S. W. Rep. 891. on a trial for murder by shoot ing, it was held error to exclude the declaration by the defendant before the shooting that the gun was not loaded. The declaration was made on a railroad train on the way to the scene of the shooting, and the occasion of it was the gun's falling down in the car and a caution to the defendant about the danger of its being thus fired, to which he replied that it was not loaded. The exact time elapsing between the time of this declaration and the time of the shooting does not appear, except that it was " a few hours," but it appears that the gun was not charged in that interval. The Court very properly said : — "The degree of the guilt of the prisoner depended on the inquiry whether, at the time of the homicide, he be lieved the gun was unloaded, and the reasonableness of the belief. The declaration was uttered a few hours before the