Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/277

 ' - _"_$ .___.

The Legal World $50,000. It is of more importance than building battleships, when 3,000 miles of restless ocean protects us on the East and 10,000 miles on the West.

These oceans have

protected us in our infancy and will do so in the future, unless we wish to conquer.

R081‘. R. ODELL. Minneapolis, Minn. March 8, 1910.

259

hat readers who may not have read the article in the February number may not draw any insupportable inferences from the fore orng letter, it seems only just to say that r. Alexander and his colleagues, if we are

not much mistaken, are not seekin a legis lative codiﬁcation; and that t ey also consider the diﬂiculties in the path of public ﬁnancing of a codiﬁcation of any kind in superable.— Ed]

The Legal World and others, that he could advise clients and

Important Litigation Eight directors of the Consolidated Milk Exchange were indicted in New York City Feb. 23 for conspiring in June, 1909, to ﬁx the wholesale price of milk, in violation of the

gonnelly anti-monopoly law of New York tate.

Six corporations and twenty-one individuals formin the so-called Meat Trust were in dicted eb. 25 in Jersey City by the grand jury of Hudson county. They were accused of conspiracy and of creating a monopoly, enhancing the price of meat and poultry, and deliberately carrying a shortage in the supply of articles necessary for food. In

Loewe v.

United

Hatters of

North

America, in the United States Circuit Court

sitting at Hartford, Conn., the j found a verdict Feb. 4 for the plaintiff in t e sum of

pzactise law in his office, but could not go fore the court as a lawyer. One of t e judges of the Court remarked, during the tri,- that the case was of great importance as a precedent involving the ri ht of a dis barred lawyer to keep a law 0 cc and give a V108.

Imporianl Legislallon The bill approved by the American Bar Association and Mississippi Bar Association providing that no judgment shall be set aside or new trial granted by the Sn reme Court unless there is reason to believe t at there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice was defeated in the Mississippi Senate Feb. 12, a rnajorit of the senators believing that it would orce the Supreme Court to try cases on the facts instead of the law.

$74,000 damages done to the business of the

plaintiff by means of the defendants’ boycott. As the suit was brought under the Sherman anti-trust law, triple damages can be recov ered, so that the Hatters‘ Union may have to pay $222,000 dama es, and more than $10,000 court costs an counsel fees. The case dates back to 1902. It will be carried to the Court of Appeals, and if the verdict is there sustained, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The principle in the case is essentiall the same as that involved in the famous aft-Vale case in England, namely, that of the liability of a labor union for the damages it inﬂicts by means of a boycott. (Cf. Loewe v. Lawlor, 1904, 130 Fed. Rep. 633; 1905, 142 Fed. Rep. 216.)

A disbarment case recently came before the Supreme Court of Louisiana when Attor ney-General Guion, on the recommendation

of the disbarment committee of the Louisiana Bar Association, asked that F. Rivers Richard

son be adjud ed guilty of contempt. The latter was dis arred upwards of a year ago, but had continued to keep a law ofﬁce, having been advised by Federal Jud e Rufus E. Foster, Judge Saunders, Judge red D. King,

A sound principle is perhaps embodied in the bill introduced in Congress by Represen tative Bennet of New York providing that all aliens committed to a state prison for not less than one year shall, at the expiration of their sentences, be deported to their native

countries by the federal government. The penal institutions of many states swarm with immigrants who still owe allegiance to other ﬂags. The Administration injunction bill was introduced in Congress Feb. 18 b Rap sentative Moon of Pennsylvania. in e ect, it provided that no injunction, whether interlocutory or permanent, should be issued by any federal court without previous notice and an opportunity to be heard on behalf of the parties enjoined. But if there appears a probability that “immediate and irreparable injury" is likely to ensue. the court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice. It is required that every such order shall deﬁne the injury, state why it is irreparable and why

nted without notice, and shall

not exten more than seven days from the time the notice is served.