Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/355

 268

THE GREEN BAG

the expiration of such term, such commission shall upon complaint as provided again fix the price of gas or electricity." The only persons authorized to make complaint are municipal officers or cus tomers or purchasers of gas or electricity, and no such right is given to the corporation furnishing the service. This is held by the court to be in violation of the I4th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, providing that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal pro tection of the laws. COPYRIGHTS. (Musical Compositions.) U. S. Sup. Ct. — The decision of the United States Supreme Court in White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 319, has been the cause of considerable comment. The question involved was whether the manufacture and sale of perforated rolls to be used in connection with mechanical piano players was an infringent of the copyright on musical compositions. The court discusses the manner in which these rolls are pre pared and the use to which they are put and while recognizing the fact that manufacturers thereof are enabled to use musical compositions for which they pay no value, holds that the copyright laws are not thereby violated. CRIMINAL LAW. (Conspiracy.) U. S. D. C., Colo. — The indictment in United States v. Keitel, i 57 Fed. Rep. 396, alleged that the defendants had entered into a conspiracy to cause certain persons to make entries of coal lands in their own names to be paid for by money furnished by a corporation in which defendants were interested and to whom the lands were to be conveyed. The first count charged these acts as constituting a conspiracy to defraud within section 5440 of the Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676.] The second count alleged the same acts to constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States in violation of section 4746 of the Revised Statutes as amended, [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3279], which provided punishment for the making or presentation of certain false and fraudulent affidavits, declarations, certificates, etc., pertain ing to matters within the jurisdiction of the Secre tary of the Interior. In referring to the first count the court says that it is necessary to look to the common law to determine what constitutes a conspiracy within the meaning of section 5440 and comes to the conclusion that the acts charged do not make out a crime; that " the entrymen were qualified as such, they obtained no more land than the acreage limited by the act and they paid the price fixed by Congress. The act does not denounce what they did as criminal, nor does it place a prohibition against their conduct so that we can say their acts are therefore unlawful." In regard to the second count it was held that the

charge therein contained did not relate to " mat ters within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior " as that phrase is used in section 4746. Motions to quash both counts were sus tained. CRIMINAL LAW. (Limited Parole.) Va. The case of Scott v. Chichester, 60 S. E. Rep. 95, involves a determination by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of the effect of the parole of a person imprisoned in the city jail on the computa tion of his sentence when retaken for violation of the parole. Plaintiff had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight months for an un lawful assault and after serving a part of this period was released on suspension of judgment. Subsequently he was found guilty of another offense and on the theory that he was simply out on probation was remanded to jail to serve the remainder of his sentence. On the part of accused it was claimed that the sentence being originally for a definite time, which expired at a certain date, could not thereafter be extended by the fact that during a part of this period he had been released from custody. The court refers to the case of Cleekv. Commonwealth. 21 Grat. 777, as authority on the question of re-imprisonment of a prisoner after escape, but draws a distinction between that class of cases and the present one and holds the prisoner entitled to release at the da'te set in the original sentence. CRIMINAL LAW. (Spring Gun.) Wash. Spring gun cases are rather infrequent, but an interesting example is found State i1. Marfaudille. 92 Pac. Rep. 939, decided by the Washington Supreme Court. Defendant had arranged a gun in his trunk in such a way that the opening of the trunk would discharge it. His landlady on going to his room to make the bed found the key to the trunk and with no apparent object other than to satisfy her curiosity opened it and was killed by a shot from the weapon concealed within. Defend ant was convicted of murder in the second degree and appealed. The conviction was reversed on account of errors in course of selection of the jury and erroneous statements by the trial court but the appellate tribunal took occasion to say that a warning by accused to decedent would be no de fense unless her act was with intention to cause self destruction nor would a lack of intent to kill the particular person who fell a victim be any excuse. CRIMINAL LAW. (Verdict in Absence of Accused.) Ala. — A novel question of criminal law is presented in the decision of the Supi*016 Court of Alabama in Harris v. State, 45 So. ReP216. Harris was tried for murder and while be and his counsel were absent from the court room, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty of murder