The Nezperce herald. (Nezperce, Idaho) 1900-1957, 1909-07-29
Legal Information



In constituting the statute prohibit
Ing the use for advertising purposes
OF the portrait OF picture OF any Nv
Ing person without first having OBJ
tanned his written consent. or. II the
person be a minor. she consent Of the
parent or guardian. the New York SUI
preme Court al Special Term. In
Wyatt VS.. Wanamaker. 10 New York
Supplement. $50. where q minor asked
for damages and an injunction for
using her name. held Il no defense
that the original OF the picture gave
the defendant the right 10 sell or 9TH
erwise use copies OF Il. even where the
consideration was a reduction in price.
as minors cannot evade the plain pro
visions OF the statute requiring writ
ten permission from the parent or
guardian.
The Supreme Court OF Montana IN
Lindsay 4 co. vs.. Montana Federation
Of Labor. Sc Pacific Reporter. ~. held
that the distribution OF circular urg-
ing all organised labor TO withhold
patronage from plaintiffs was not lie
gal because plaintiffs had no property
right IN the trade Of any particular
person. and that although decisions
exist which make the same act lawful
when done by one person unlawful
when done by several. on the theory
that concerted action amounts TO q
conspiracy. an individual clothed with
a right when acting alone does not
lose such right merely by acting with
others. each Of whom has the same
right, and that II labor organization
employs a boycott. the means OF its
enforcement being legal. the courts
cannot assist the persons boycotted-
Plaintiff was injured by an electric
shock received from one OF the poles
OF defendants trolley system. The
New York Supreme Court In Moglia
VS.. Nassau Elec. r. Co. III New York
Supplement. 20. held that a ,prima
facie case was made. and the trial
court committed no error In failing
10 submit the Issue OF negligence to
the Jury. where the defendant offered
no evidence. and the lower court In.
structed the jury that the fact Of the
accident called for an explanation. and
as none was offered the verdict should
be for plaintiff. Defendant oontended
that the Jury was not bound TO be
lieve plainsiff. but should be free to
determine whether he was injured in
the manner shown. and. II the doc
trine OF res ipsa loQuitur was applica'
BILE. the inference Of negligence was
for the jury.
Plaintiff. while under the influence
81 an anmsthetIc, was taken from the
operating room of hospital to the
elevator for She purpose OF being re.
moved to the room assigned her. The
elevator was somewhere below, and
the SHAFT door was Open. Both attend
ants left plaintiff 70 see about getting
the elevator. During their absence
the car or strctcher was by some
means started (probably by an invol.
untary movement on the part OF plain
TIM, causing It to run into the open
shaft. causing the Injuries complained
OF. Tho Iowa Supreme Court In
Haaae VS.. Morton q Morton, lis
Northwestern Reporter. e2s, did not
uphold defendants contention that
the movement OF the car was some
thing not 70 have reasonably been
foreseen. and that the act Of leaving
It in the exposed position could not
be considered the proximate cause OF
the injury. and allowed a verdict and
Judgment for plaintiff.