Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/396

 NOTES OF RECENT CASES were Rankin v. Packet Co., 9 Heisk. 564, where a carrier sold cotton seed in his hands for trans portation, claiming that it was perishable and that he was compelled to sell it by necessity. The court holds that it is not so perishable as to support any such right and all that is said upon the subject of the right of the carrier to sell perishable freight is by way of argument and dictum. The other case is Arthur v. the Schooner Cassius, 3d Story 81.' Hutchinson at Sect. 433 points out " that in the case of carriers by sea the master of the vessel is vested by law with power to sell the goods of the shipper of the cargo in case of absolute necessity " ..." or where the goods in case of accidental delay are about to perish," and this doctrine he supports by many cases. It has often been held that a carrier has no right to sell for the enforcement of his carrier's lien un less the right is given him by statute, and this rule has been applied frequently even in the case of perishable freight. It was so held in Briggs v. Boston & L. R. Co., 6 Allen 246, 1863, as to flour which was fermenting, and in Indianapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. Herndon, 81 Ill. 143 (1876), as to packages of trees. The right even of carriers by water to so sell has been sometimes denied, Hunt v. Haskell, 24 Me. 339, but seems much more freely allowed than that of a carrier by land, Charles Noble Gregory. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Commerce.) Mass. — In Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 76 Northeastern Reporter, 955, tea and coffee are excluded from the category of provisions, and apparently classed with drugs or possibly in connection with the latter portion of the court's argument with liquors. Massachusetts Revised Laws (c. 65, §§ 15, 16), prohibit peddling without a license, but except the sale of provisions from the operation of the act. The word " provisions " as here used, says the court, means " food, victuals, fare, and pro vender." Tea and coffee, it is stated, are not used as food, in the form in which they are sold by shopkeepers, but are used to make decoctions, to be taken as a beverage for their agreeable taste or their stimulating effect. In this respect they are not very different from wine and beer, which in many countries are in common use at meals. Hence the court holds that they are not " provi sions." A holding of more genuine importance contained in this case is that the statute under 1 Where lumber was carried by sea from N.Y. to Texas and Justice Story held lumber was not per ishable freight and therefore the master had no right to sell on its not being received. This too is not a direct authority for Hutchinson's doctrine involves the right of a carrier by sea.

367

consideration which permits the sale by peddlers of agricultural products of the United States with out a license, but forbids unlicensed sales of agricul tural products of other countries, is a regulation of commerce in conflict with United States Con stitution, Art. i, § 8, providing that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (See Patents.) COPYRIGHT. (Infringement — City Direc tory.) U. S. C. C. ist Circuit. — The case of Samp son & Murdock Co. v. Seaver-Radford Co., the Circuit Court opinion in which was noted and dis cussed in this magazine at the time it was pub lished in 134 Federal Reporter, 890, has been reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The opinion on appeal is in 140 Federal Reporter, 539. Complainant published a general directory of the city of Boston in July, 1903, purporting to give facts as they existed in the spring of that year. This directory was duly copyrighted. In February, 1904, defendant pub lished a general directory of the city which pur ported to give the facts as they existed just prior to that time. After completing its original canvass for names, defendant copied on slips from complainant's directory such names there printed as it had not obtained in its own canvass, with the information given about them, and with such slips as a guide it verified them by sending canvassers to the addresses given therein, and when found correct reprinted the same without alteration in its own directory. It was this rcpublication which plaintiff complained of as an infringement and which the Circuit Court held not to be such. The court disclaims any intention of taking issue with the holding in Edward Thompson Co. v. American Law Book Co., 122 Fed. 922, 59 C. C. A. 148, but holds that the proper purpose of the xisual alpha betical directory is to afford a searcher informa tion of the residence, occupation, and other details of the particular person whom he desires to inves tigate, and that it is not within the proper purpose of such a work that any one should use such infor mation for correcting his own book of like char acter, and hence, that defendant's use of com plainant's directory was an infringement. CORPORATION. (See Insurance.) CRIMINAL LAW. (Confronting Witnesses — Deaf and Dumb Defendant.) Ga. — In the case of Ralphs. State, 52 Southeastern Reporter, 298, may be found a decision which appears to be entirely without precedent. It involves the question as to what constitutes a confrontation by witnesses within the meaning of the constitutional provision that every person charged with an offense shall be confronted with the witnesses testifying against