The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-09-14
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


strained by injunction from using. with
out authority. the picture Of a person for
the purpose Of advertising its gooGs3 The
supreme Court Of New York. Appellate
Division. in the case of Robertson VS.. Ro-
chester Folding Box Company 81 y Y
Supp. SGD has recently held that an In
junction VIII lie IN such a case on the
ground that in using the pictGre the com
pany iuvades the right OF property which
the owner Of the picture has In his or her
body and features. and also invades tnv
right Of privacy The court said that the
theory upon which the suit for an injunc-
ton is prediCated is new. az least I'm in
stance, II not In principle. and that few.
II any. preCedeuts can be found TO suS-
tain the claim for an injunction; but that
the want Of a precedent would not be
sufficient reason for turning the platnun
out OF court The manufacturing com
pany had printed and circulated about o.
oW photographic prints or photographs Of
the plaintiff. a young woman. without her
consent or authority, and upon each were
printed above the photograph in large
letters Flour Of the Family" and below
IN large capital letters Franklin Mills
tlCur, and in the corner Rochester
Folding-BoX Company" The photographs
were recognized by the friends and ac-
y
has been greatly Inundated by the jokes
and criticisms directed at her. The com
pdny contenced that the plaintiff had no
right or property In her photograph. and
that II therefore violated no legal right
in using the picture In Advertising it's
goods But the court held that IL IS an
established principle Of the common law
that the person and property Of every
person is iuviolate; and that neither
should be intCrfcrcd with In any way or 70
any, the slightest, extent without his
consent: and that there IS an actual
right or property In ones features. which
VIII entitle one to restrain an uuWaT-
rdnted reproduction Of them. In holding
that the Injunction would also lie on the
complete immunity from the invasion OF
MS privacy, and that the facts in this
case constitute such an invasion, the
court said 1t has been said that the
law takes no cOgniZanCe Of injuries 20
the feelings Of individuals. unless such
injury Is caused by an illegal act and
that II would not be safe 90 base any
FlShL OF aCuOn upon the fact that per-
son was Of "a sensitive nature and easily
injured by being brought into public no
tee, see no force in this contention.
that any one. without force or violence.
Is entitled 10 interfere with another II il
Is 70 his pecuniary advantage 10 do so.
without regard TO the feelings of that
other person. But the law has always re-
garded the fact that other things than
pecunlary interests are 10 De protected.
VINO because II Is for his advantage to
do so, tnteTferes with the desire of an
oLner person 20 be left alone, IS 70 be auv
more regarded than the person interfered
with who is DESTROYS Co have his feelings
protected The precise question in
EOlved In this case has never before been
decided In this country. but similar ques-
ions were presented in the following
cases Schuyler vs. Curtis. I4T \
$50 Marks vs. Jaffd . y Y SupD. gIs-
Murray vs. Engraving Company. . y
D9hefty & Co, 10 Mica 80. C0rliss rs.
walker Company, 81 Fed. 30
The custom Of hitching horses on unan-
closed land for period Of fifty years does
not create possession Of the land. holds
the Court Of Chancerv AtpeaIs o. Tenn
essee IN che case Of Hear7 VS. Jones ga
, w Rep. JiD- The own r Of a tract
OF land consisting Of three acres. conveyed
one acre 20 tine trustees Of a church for
the benefit OF the church The other two
acres were un~uclose2 and remained 50
ioL MI years during which zine mem
btFS OF the church were accustomed to
liIch thelr horses thereon while attend
ING the church II was c0uteuded by the
church trustees that this use Of the land
ned the claim OF the church of the two
acres But the court held that such acts
did not constitute adverse possession
Under the code Of New York making it
a misdemeanor TO influence or ATTEMPT TO
influence improperly a Juror in respect TO
his verdict where a defendant. knowing
that a certain person was a grand Juror.
invited him into store 70 talk with him
concerning a case which was to be pre-
sented 10 the grand jury and ATTEMPTED
q influence him against a prosecution thu
: upreme Court, appellate division NV
OK, IN the case Of People VS. Glen al
r L supp NS3j. holds that the action of
the defendant is sufficient 70 sustain
conviction.
Where a telephone company having the
exclusive privilege Of operating lines in a
city is prepared. at reasonable rates. to .
attach extension instruments for its sub !
scribers, the Supreme Court Of Rhode /
Island. in the case Of Gardner VS.. Pr0vi- [
cence Telephone Company Cf9 Att Rep
hood. holds that it may forbid the attach I
mcET OF private extension Instruments 10 +
Its lines and refuse the use of its lines .
and instruments 40 one who refuses 20 .
comply with such regulation.
It IS within the discretion of the trial .
court TO reopen a cause after the argu- I
ment has commenced and permit the pros
ecutiOn To introduce additional evidence.
holds the Supreme Court OF Oklahoma in \
the case or Harvey rs. Territory l65 Pac
KEEP $50 and unless there has been .
clear abuse Of such discretion 10 the man
fest prejudice Of the defendant the appel /
late court VIII not interfere
Where property is given by a husband I
20 his wife prior 20 their marriage. and 1
after the marriage is recognized by him I
as his wif-s separate property. the /
Court of Chaucery Appeals Of Tennessee.
iu the case Of Young Us. Young l6l 5 W ,
Rep s-+J. holds that the marital rights
do not attach thereto. and that IL must De
treated in the widows settlement with
lEe deceased husbands executor as her
property
The right OF a stock holder In private
corporation To- examine and inspect its
books. records. and papers IS q present /
right under statute in Tennessee when /
"a demand is made at a reasonable time
An indefinite delay fin according this right
is equivalent 20 "a denial Of il. holds ne
Court Of Chancery Appeals Of Tennessee
.u the case Of Cobb VS. I.sarIa ga =
Rep .25l- When the stakeholder raak.s
application az "a reasonable and proper Z
time TO examine the books he eb1i!IE {
show "a definite. legitimate purpose.
CURRENT HUMOR.
Not Buckeye.