The Nezperce herald. (Nezperce, Idaho) 1900-1957, 1910-03-17
Legal Information


In constituting the statute prohibit
ing the use for advertising purposes
OF the portrait or picture OF n nv
snx psrxon without nrst having Oh
tsined bis written consent. or. II tns
nprsou be a minor. the consent OF the
parent or guardian. the New York su-
prems Court al Special Term. IN
WYATT rs. WanamAker. 10 New YORK.
Supplement. $50. where a minor
for damages and an injunction for
ur,ng her uame. held IL no defenss
that the original Of the picture gave
the defendant the right to sell or otn'
erwise uss copies Of II. even where the
consideration was a reduction In price
A ufuors cannot evade the plain pro
visions Of the statute requiring writ
tan permission from the parent OF
guardian
The Supreme Court Of Montana in
Lindsay q Co. "a Montana Federation
Of Labor. 90 Pacific Reporter. III. held
that the distribution OF a circular urs
ing all organised labor 70 withhold
patronage from ~plxintifx was not ins
usl becsuse plaintiffs had no property
rsxht In the trade OF any particular
psruon. and that although decisions
sxtst which make the same act lawful
whsn done By one person unlawful
when done by several. on the theory
that concerted action amounts 10 q
conspiracy. an individual clothed With
= rirht when acting alone does not
lose such right merely BY sctins with
othsrr. zach OF whom has the same
rfrht. and that n 8 labor organization
employs a boycott the means Of is
endorsement being legal. the ccurtk
cannot assist the persons eoycotted-
Plaintiff was injured by an electric
shock received from n OF the poles
Of defendants trolley system. The
New York Supreme Court In Hoglis
va Nassau Elec. r. Co. Ill New fors
supplrment 70, held that a prims
facss case was made. and the trial
oourf committed no error In falling
70 submit the issue OF negligence e
the Jury. where the defendant offered
no evidence. and the lower court In
xfructed the jury that the fact Of th'
accident called for an explanation ant
"A none was offered the verdict should
be for plaintiff. Defendant contsnde'
that the Jury was not bound to be
lievs plaintiff. but should b free q
d~termfns whether he vas injured n
the manner shown. and. X the doc
Urine Of res ipss loouitur was spplica
lbls. the inference Of negligence wa
for the Jury
|. Plaintiff. while under the infuenc'
Of an anmsthetic. was taken from IN
: onernttns room Of a hospital TO tn
. elevator for the purpose Of being n
moved 10 the room assigned her. IN
elevator was somewhere below. ant
. ths shaft door was open. Both attend
ants left plxintir to ses about Eestin'
the elevator. During their ansenc
! the car or strstcher was BY ON
= mesns started (probabIy BY an invo'
~untary movement on the part Of plain
rur). causing Il to run into the ope'
shaft. causinx the injuries compliance
LET. The Iowa Supreme Court \
IHssse vs. Morton q Morton. II
Northwestern Reporter. s2s. did nc
: uphold defendants contention tha
: she movement OF the q was som
! thing not to have reasonably bee
foreseen. and that the act Of ieavin
n in the exposed position could nc
b considered tho proximats cause {
= ths injury. and allowed a verdict an
Judgment for plaintiff.