The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-27
NOTES OF LEeAI Events.

'aN Alh ApiNlONNo W NNS ~ " NhN ANNNO
court now presided over by the Hon. II. e..
Ewnrt, who was recently nominated by tho
President for tho Office of District Judge OF the
United States for tho Western District of North
Carolina. lie is the Judge OF the Criminal
Circuit Court for tho counties OF B~uncombe,
Haywood, Henderson, Mcdowell, and Madison,
which lilo in the mountain region comprising
the western part Of the State. Originally the
jurisdiction of this tribunal appears to have
boon exclusively criminal, but in 1897 tho
Legislature passed an act assuming to confer
upon tho Judge equal jurisdiction with the
Judges OF the Superior Courts of tho state us
to all civil actions and proceedings and all civil
business originating or pending in any OF the
counties Of his circuit. Tho Supreme Court of
North Carolina has now declared this act TO
be unconstitutional, md considerable incon-
venicncc is expected to cnsue, as Judge Ewart
has held q number of terms Of court for tho
hearing and determination OF civil causes.
Action by the Senate upon his nomination us
Federal District Judge has been delayed at tho
request of one Of the Senators from North Caro-
lina.
Wo find in tho Washington Post a notice Of
an interesting equity suit in Pcnnsylvania in
which the complninants are two young ladies
of McEcesrort, and the defendant is a pho
tographcr. who insisted upon displaying their
portraits III MS snow wlnuowb upon the puDlC
street. They had merely had their photo
graphs taken by him in the ordinary way, and
they insisted that he had no legal right to public
ly exhibit their pictures without their consent.
In this view the court concurs. and they have
obtained an injunction for the present. Re.
straining orders of n similar character have
been granted occasionally in England and in
some of the States of tho Union. In a leading
English case Mr.. Justice North enjoined the
Photographic Company of Rochester from
selling or exposing for sale or as an advertise
ment n photograph OF Mrs. Alice Morris Pol
lard. tho plaintiff. which the defendant had
gotten up rs a Christmas card. The learned
Judge said that a photographer was frequently
allowed. at his own request. to take a photo
graph of a person under circumstances i'm
plying that both parties contemplated that no
should acquire n subsequent right to sell
copies. but he held that the ordinary contract
involved an implied agreement on the part OK
the photographer that the prints taken from
tho negative should BIO applied only TO the use
Of the customer. The same rule has been laid
down in this country by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota
There seems to be great vitality in the project
for revivinK the Second Division of the Court OF
Appeals. A proposed amendment to the Con-
stitution authorizing the Governor to create
such a tribunal La- received the sanction Of
the judiciary Committee OF the State Senate.
The scheme which it embodies differs from the
former plan chiefly in the fact that the Governor
Is not required to make his selections from
the Justices OF the Supreme Court, although he
Is left at liberty to do SO. We doubt whether the
project has the approval OF tho members of tho
existing Court of Appeals. The Constitutional
Convention OF 1894 was opposed TO a Second Di.
vision, and the Judiciary Committee believed
that when the new Appellate Division system
had got fairly to"work, the Court of Appeals
would no longer DO oyerburdcned: but sufficient
time has not yet elapsed to enable the court 10
dispose Of tho appeals from the old General
Terms.
There is q manifest Inconsistency in providing
for a Second Division OF tho Court of Appeals
and at the same tiuo changing the law so as to
increase the number of cases which the Court OF
Appeals must hear. 1t is announced from Al
bany, however. that an effort is on foot to in
duce tho LEGISLATURE to restore the privilege Of
an appeal to the Court Of Appeals in those negli-
gence cases which cannot now BIO carried higher
than tho Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court. Unless the principle IL to be adopted Of
allowing two appeals in every case, the present
system would seem to answer all reasonable re-
ouirements. In the negligence cases to which
We refer, any Judgeof the Court of Appeals may
allow AN appeal to that tribunal, II he thinks a
question Is involved which ought to be heard
there. This insures fair treatment to the'unsuc-
cessful party. On the other: hand, unlcss Tho
has a substantial point OF law to present, he can-
not keep tho successful party out Of his money
simply by taking an appeal for the sake of de-
lay.
The decision of Mr.. Justice Pryor that DR..
Charles Il. Kelsey is entitled to reinstatement
as a member of the faculty OF tho New York
Post Graduate Medical School and Hospital, Is
based upon q judicial construction OF the by
laws Of tho institution, and does not pass upon
the propriety or truth Of DIR. Kelsey's complaint
to the Corporation Counsel that false reports
had been made as to the number Of charity pa.
tients treated there. The doctor was removed
from the faculty by a mere majority vote OF the
directors, and without any chars s having been
preferred against him. Judge Pryor holds that
under O proper Interpretation Of the bylaws.
there was no power TO remove him except by q
three. fourths vote of the board, after notice Of
the proceeding. service OF a copy Of the charges,
and an opportunity to be heard. A writ OF
mandamus has therefore been awarded, direct
ing his restoration to membership in tho fac
ulty.
Several cases involving important questions
of constitutional law were argued in the SUI
preme Court of tho United States during the
past week. Ono OF these was from Virginia
and related to the validity OF certain legislation
in that State providing for tho receipt OF cou.
pons for taxes. There was also an Iowa liquor
law case, in which the Attorncy-General Of that
State appeared as counsel. Most important of
all. however, was the appeal in the suit of the
United States against tho Joint Traffic Asso-
citation, in which the Government socks to re-
strain upward Of thirty railroad companies
from operating under tho so-calicd joint traffic
agreement.on the ground that such agreement
ia in violation OF the Federal Antitrust and
Interstate Commerce laws. Tho principal ar
gument In behalf Of tho United States was
made by Solicitor.G cncral Richards, while that
in behalf of tho railroads was made by Mr..
James G. Carter. Several significant questions
were put to Mr.. Carter by Mr.. Justice Brewer.
the tone of which indicated that tho Judge did
not at all agree with the views OF counsel. For.
mar senator Edmunds and Mi. Edward j.