Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/186

 Correspondence MR. JUSTICE DARLING'S BOOK CONTAINS PARODIES, NOT QUOTATIONS

judgments delivered by them. But as a matter of fact they are merely paro

dies of the style of those judges —and not even travesties of actual judgments

To the Editor of the Green Bag: Sir: In the amusing notice of myself in the Green Bag of December last— which you were kind enough to send me—there is an injustice done to

several deceased judges, and I should be sorry if it were not removed. Unless I am entirely mistaken, the writer of the article is under the im pression that the judgments of Lord Coleridge, C. J., of James, L. J., and

the others which he says I quote in my little “Scintillae Juris" are genuine

of theirs.

The parodies are however

sufficiently close for me to have been assured by each Judge in turn that the

judgments attributed to his brethren were most characteristic. Believe me Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARLING. Lady Cross Lodge, Broekenhurst, Hants, January 9, 1911.

The Legal World

these corporations in the ﬁrst argument of their

General, made the opening address. He said that his view was that the law intended to pre vent interference with the free How of competi tion in commerce between the states and that any combination that was suﬁcient to interfere with the free flow was within the Sherman anti trust law. He explained that he had in mind a material and direct obstruction of commerce. Delancey Nicoll opened for the defendants on the 9th. He was followed by John G. John son and W. B. Homblower, the latter speaking on behalf of the Imperial Tobacco Company, re ferred to as the "British Tobacco Trust." Mr. Johnson said that the best minds of the country had failed to convince the court that the word "unreasonable" should be inserted before "re straint," and he prophesied that the Govern ment’s present attempt would result in failure. Consequently, Mr. Johnson argued that the Government's whole theory fell to the ground. He also argued that the Knight case controlled the present suit.

dissolution suit a year ago. Another brief was ﬁled by William M. Ivins of New York. C. When McReynolds, oral arguments special assistant were begun to the onAttorney‘ Jan. 6. .I

Parker, speaking for John G. Johnson, said that bigness of an organization or mere power pos

The United States Supreme Court The time of the United States Supreme Court in January was taken up chieﬂy with hearing the re-arguments in the Standard Oil, American Tobacco Company and Corporation Tax cases, practically a week being given both to the ﬁrst and second and three consecutive days to the third, before the Court adjourned to give ex tended deliberation to these three great suits till Feb. 20. It was thought that Mr. Justice Van Devanter might not sit in the Standard Oil case, as he had

participated in the judgment of the Circuit Court, but he was in his seat to hear all the arguments of counsel. The rehearing of the American Tobacco Com pany case began on Jan. 5. One brief was ﬁled in the court by John G. Johnson of Philadelphia, Judge William J. Wallace, W. W. Fuller, De lancey Nicoll and Junius Parker, all of New

York, who carried the brunt of the battle for

In the ﬁnal arguments on the 11th, Junius

sessed by it was not a criterion of a monopoly.