Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/184

 Rh v. Kreutzberg (Wis.) 90 N. W. 1098. Em Co., 58 App. Div. 362, 68 New York Sup ployers of labor agree what they will pay and plement 1028, in which an actress, whose laboring men agree for what sum they will stage name was Mary Louise Clary brought work. Buyers, and vendors of various com an action of libel based upon the fact that modities make their agreements. Farmers defendant published her picture as that of Louise Clearv in connection with an ac will, and do agree as to the price for which count of the latter's marriage. The question they will sell and what they will 'pay for of identity was left to the jury, which found labor: but this statute says that insurance companies shall agree as to none of these against the plaintiff. The second case is Morrison 7r. Smith, 83 App. Div. 286, 82 New things. The court disclaims any intention to hold that insurance companies can com York Supplement 166, in which the publica bine and thereby conspire to accomplish any tion of plaintiff's picture in connection with desired purpose. It only holds that insurthe advertisement of a book said to contain the experience of a giddy typewriter girl was ane companies may make the usual contracts that all other persons and corporations may made the basis of an action. The complaint make, which this statute seeks to take from ' was dismissed on a technicality, but on the question of liability the court said that its them, and which will be taken from them if inclination would be to hold that the case this statute is upheld. was for the jury. On the whole the court decides that the Xcu- York Herald was reLIBEL. (PUBLICATION OF PHOTOCRAPH — KEPREs-KMisiblc. SENTATION AS TO IDENTITY.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.

De Sando v. New York Herald Co., 85 New York Supplement in, brought up for review the liability incurred by the New York Herald in publishing plaintiff's photo graph as that of the Italian bandit Musolino in connection with an article describing the various misdemeanors of that interesting in dividual. Not having his portrait at hand, the Herald, as newspapers sometimes do, published one which the public might accept as such. The article was concededlv libelons, and the court says it would be a reflection upon the law if it was powerless to afford some remedy for so grievous a wrong. Stripped of extraneous considerations the question is whether the person responsible for the publication of a photograph in con nection with a libclous article referring specifically to the picture, can escape liabil ity by placing underneath it the name of a person different from that of the person of whom the picture is a likeness, and stating in the article some facts which, standing alone, would tend to negative the inference that the article was published of and con cerning such person. Two cases are cited: the first: Clary-Squire v. Press Publishing

MONOPOLY. (-TOBACCO TRUST—EXCLUSIVE HANDLINO OK WARES— STIPULATION— REFUSAL то SELL то RETAIL DKALKR—VIOLATION or ANTI TRUST ACT.) UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OK AP PEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

In Whitwell?'. Continental Tobacco Com pany, 125 Federal Reporter 454. the court had before it the question whether, in re fusing to sell a retailer except under an arrangement advantageous to him only in the event that he would agree to handle none of the product of independent manufactur ers, the defendant violated the Act of Con gress of July 2, 1900 (United States Compiled Statutes, 1901, page 3200), pro hibiting everv contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of commerce, and also punishing every person who shall monopolize, or .at tempt to monopolize any part of the trade among the several States. This branch of the tobacco trust does business as follows: It allots to an intending purchaser an amount of goods which he is required to buy during each succeeding period of four months, which is much in excess of what he will be able to sell during that time. The price is