The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-15
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

-NeM oih- LUIS NofH, Nnlcn IS the name
OF French artist. has recognized use
in a descriptive sense, denoting a system
of exercise for developing bodily grace and
strength, and in this sense was applied by
the defendants to certain shoes mar,ffae-
tured by them. These shoes were con-
structed on the Delsartean theory and were
advertised as the Dsisarte shoes The CON-
pfsiaants also used the word in connection
With line OF shoes they manufactured,
but merely as a fancy name not descri5-
tive in itself Of any characteristics or
qualities of the shoes. The defendants had
used the word in the sense indicated seven
yearE before the compliments adopted IL
as fancy name and the question was as
to who was entitled to the exclusive use OF
II as trade mark. The court held thar
descriptive words cannot be appropriate ed
as exclusive trade marks. and that as he
defendants had used the word in its gun
erai, or descriptive, sense. they were pre-
vented from asserting an exclusive use of
the word as against the compliments. who
used II solely as fancy word, which latter
use permits word to become an exclusive
trade mark. The chancellor said that the
question was neTel one and that he had
great difficulty in reaching a conclusion
The primary election law of California;
has been recently declared to be uncon-
stitutional by the Supreme Court Of that
State. in the case of Britton VS.. Board
of Election Commissioners. The Law
provided an exclusive scheme controli-
ing political parties in holding their con-
yentions for the nomination of oandi-
dates to public Office, but denied the
rights and privileges to all political par
ties which had nns east at the next pre-.
cedjng election at least 3 per cent CT ths
total vote. The court held that this law
was in conflict with the provisions of thu
constitution of California. granting the
people the right to freely assemble to-
gether to consult for the common good
and providing that no citizens or class OF
citizens shall be granted privileges or
immunities which upon the same terms
shall not be granted to all citizens, and
all laws of a general nature shall have
uniform operation. In their opinion, the
court said in part: AT the outset the
law declares that all delegates TO con-
ventions Of political parties for the pur-
pose of making nominations of seandi-
dates for public offices shall be elected
at elections conducted under the rsgula-
tions in the act provided. There Is at
once to be perceived an express limita-
tion upon the powers of political parties,
which heretofore they have freely exer-
cised, of adopting their own modes for
the selection of their representatives.
ut is a part of the political history OF
this State and of the United States. that
such powers. whether resting in right or
merely in the permissive silence of the
have been freely enjoyed.
But We will not now stop to con-
slider whether political partieS have here
tofore enjoyed these privileges. as of right.
or merely under permission. We have re-
ferred to the matter only as illustrating
the bold innovation OF this legislation and
thus of an added necessity for careful
scrutiny and consideration Of its terms.
This much, however, we think, will DO
freely conceded by advocate as well as by
Of the law: That If the Legis-
lature takes unto itself the regulation and
control of these internal affairs of political
parties it must do so without discrimina-
ton and with equal consideration and BEN
eft to all. But here we are con-
fronted with a provision in this law den3-
ing its rights and privileges to all political
parties which did not cast at the next
preceding election at least 3 per cent OF
the total vote The court further he'd
that the law was an unwarranted invasion
Of the rights of political parties. ..Activr
political parties-parties in opposition to
the dominant political party said the
court, "aret as has been said, essential to
the very existence of our Government. The
right OF any number OF men holding com
mon political beliefs or governmental
principles to advocate their views through
party organization cannot be denied.
8 A law which will destroy such
party organization or permit it fraudulently
to pass into the hands of its political ems
mics canno. be upheld
In considering the powers of the Board
Of Equalization in regard to assessments,
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in the
ease of Streight vs.. Durham. held that
when the time for the meeting of the
board is fixed by statute. all persons must
AXE notice of such time; and that the
.ction of the board in raising the assess
ID value of the property of an individual
lbove the return made to the board by
he assessor does rot require that notice
hall be given the taxpayer to make such
action valid; and the want of notice7toss
IN individual taxpayer is not in violation
# the Constitution of the United States.
which forbids the deprivation of any per-
son of life. liberty, or property without
due process of law. The court further
held that the Board of Equalization of a
city. in exercising its powers and func-
lions of equalizing the various individual
% increase the valuation of the property
f any individual above the returned val
iation by the assessor to the board. where
L appears that such property has been
assessed below its true cash value, sub
ect to the limitations that the property
5 uniformly assessed that no unequal
discrimination is made between different
Kinds of property within the taxing dis
riet, and that the property is not raised
~ the board above the true cash valuS.
Several interesting questicnsi as to the
liability of q municipal corporation for
the Illegal arrest of a person by its po-
lice officers and for mis- consequent i'm
pTfsOnment have been recently decid I'd
by the Supreme Court of Georgia in tn,
case of Gray VS.. Mayor. etc, of Griffin
(SG 5. E. Rep, 1922. The court held
first: That the general rule is well es-
-ablished that a municipal corporation is
not liable in damages for the Illegal ar
rest of a person by its police officers;
second. that it is not liable in damages
to a person arrested and imprisc ned in i
city prison by its police officers. fer in
juries sustained by him while SO c-niuct.
by reason of the improper construction
Or negligent maintenance of such prison:
third. nor is a city liable in damages
because its mayor required of 2 person
charged with a violation of city ordi-
nance a larger bond for his appearance
han the law authorized. even if the fail
lre of such person to give bond and his
confinement were occasioned
hereby. Tie court said that assuming
he allegations of the plaintiff 10 be true,
ne had just and great cause to comp ain
IF the needless hardships and suffering
which he endured while confined in the
'ity prison. But that however strongly
he story of his sufferings may appeal
10 our sentiments of humanity. the law