Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/51

 _

Latest Important Cases

'.¢--'

41

for the amount of the margins called for, which justified the payment by him of the margins." The Central Law journal takes issue with

the right. Our law not only safeguards the freedom of the press but our Constitution guarantees that in every prosecution for libel it makes the jury and not the judge the ar

this view of the case, and points out that the

biter not only of the facts, but of the law.

decision was based only on one authority,

"It is not necessary in order to constitute the crime of libel for a book to have been read by any person, if the defendant know ingly disposed of or parted with a copy under‘ circumstances which exposed it for sale."

namely, that of Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co.

v. Lawson, 90 Ill. App. 18. To quote: "Does one who gets what he knows to be a bank's money without giving the teller what is usual to give therefor have reason to believe he is not getting it as he should get it?

When a man of business, acquainted

with all business usages, participates in such a transaction not once but repeatedly, and receives money in different sums month after month in this irregular manner until the taking amounts to nearly one hundred thou sand dollars, and all the while the matter is

secret between the giver and the taker of the money, the giver speculating in margins,

Due Faith and Credit Clause. Deed Is sued in One State Under a Decree of Divorce Need Not be Recognized in Another State. U. S. In a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States Nov. 1, in the case of Fall v. Eastin (Chicago Legal News, Dec. 11), it was held that a deed to land situate in Nebraska, made by a commissioner under the decree of a court of the state of Washington in an action for divorce, need

through the taker, and losing as he goes, it

beggars credulity to affirm he had no sus picion that the teller was using the bank's money for his own use and proﬁt." Defamation. Libel Against a Non-Resi dent-——Such a Crime ll/Iay be Committed Through a Book as Well as a Newspaper

Publication.

N. Y.

In the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, Carlo DeFornaro, a newspaper Writer and cartoonist, was found guilty in New York City early in November of the rare crime of libel committed against a non-resident,

not be recognized in Nebraska under the due faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States.

The Court (McKenna,

J.) said:-— “However plausibly the contrary view may be sustained, we think that the doctrine that the court, not having jurisdiction of the res,

cannot affect it by its decree, nor by a deed made by a master in accordance with the decree, is ﬁrmly established. The embar rassment which sometimes results from it has been obviated by legislation in many states. But this legislation does not affect the doctrine which we have ex

namely Rafael Espindola, a Mexican editor, pressed, which rests, as we have said, on the

and sentenced to one year at hard labor in the penitentiary. Application for a certiﬁ cate of reasonable doubt was made to the Supreme Court. Seabury, 1., in denying the application on Nov. 27, said :— “The indictment brought against De For naro on April 2 is based on the sale of 24 copies of the book to Brentano. That the book contains the libel does not admit of doubt, nor does the evidence in justification do more than create an issue of fact, which the jury decided adversely to the defendant. The contention that the crime of libel against a non-resident relates exclusively to a libel published in a newspaper and not in a book s based on an erroneous conclusion. It should be borne in mind that the law pun ishes as libelous only the abuse of the right of the freedom of the press and in no respect places any restriction on the free exercise of

well-recognized principle that, when the subject-matter of a suit in a court of equity is

within another state or country, but the parties within the jurisdiction of the court, the suit may be maintained and remedies granted which may directly affect and operate upon the person of the defendant, and not upon the subject-matter, although the subject-matter is referred to in the decree, and the defendant is ordered to do or refrain from

certain acts toward it, and it is thus ultimately but indirectly affected by the relief grante ." Employers’ Liability. Federal Act of 1906 Valid in District of Columbia and Territories. U. S. In El Paso & Northeastern Ry. Co. v. Gutierrez, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Nov. 15, the federal Em

ployers' Liability Act of 1906, which had