Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1912-01-08
Important Decisions
1.-THE following notes Of cases ar.
from the West Publishing Company.
FRUITS AND CANDIES

The healthful city of St. Paul passed
an ordinance providing that all fruits
and candies exposed for sale outside
OF building, or in any wagon or cart
shall be protected from both flies and
dust. One Bacigalupo. an Italian fruit
vender, was arrested for violating this
ordinance From an order of the dis
trict court denying writ of habeas
corpus he appeals. Judge Lewis. of the
supreme court of Minnesota, in ex
parte Bacigalupo. 1872 Northwestern
Reporter. 500. affirrns the lower court
decision. and holds that the ordinance
is not an unnecessary interference with
private rights, is not an unreasonable
requirement. or Impossible of perform
ance, and is not in restraint OF trade.
or contrary to the provisions of the
state or federal constitution. The ordi-
nance was bitterly criticised because
its provisions include all fruits, such as
oranges and bananas which it was
claimed require no protection. The
Judge holds that While. no doubt.
distinction may he drawn between such
fruits and others. such as berries, 1t is
not for the courts to say that even
oranges and bananas should not be
protected against the accumulation of
dust and the approach Of flies. Sure
w. says the Judge. even those fruits
are much more wholesome and less
dangerous in scattering germs when
kept free from flies and dust" Whole
sale or commission houses come within
this ordinance.
WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION.
The Industrial Insurance law, COM
monty known as The Workman's
Compensation Act" has been held con-
stitutional by the supreme court OF
Washington in State vs. Clausen, III
Pacific Reporter, 1101. This act. which
undertakes. by requiring contributions
from employers to an accident or in
surance fund, to provide fixed and GER
tain relief for workmen injured in ex-
ira hazardous work and for families
and dependents regardless Of questions
of fault Or negligence. to the exclusion
of every other remedy or compensa-
ton, and which. among other things.
provides that no employer shall ex-
enpt himself from the burden or waive
the benefits Of the act by any contract.
agreement or regulation. and that any
such contract or regulation shall be
pro tanto void Is held not an inter
ference with the right to contract.
since there IS no absolute right to do
as one wills. pursue any calling one
desires or contract az one chooses.
and since the term liberty" means abb
sence of arbitrary. restraint and not
! immunity from reasonable regulations
and provisions imposed in the inter-
ests Of the community. The court also
| held that it does not violate the con-
stitutional provision which prohibits
! class legislation. is not objectionable
as a denial to owners of property equal
protection Of the laws, and Is not
I violation of the constitutional pro-
vision that property shall be taxed &C
! cording to it's value in money. and
that all taxation shall be equal and
uniform.
| TRADE SECRETS.
IN suit to enjoin a servant from
disclosing trade secrets, consisting OF
specific methods or secret processes
for the manufacture of commercial
| oxygen. the uuiIed States circuit court
in S. g. White Dental Mfg. Company
VS.. Mitchell 1SS Federal Reporter, 1017
holds that it was no objection to the
issuance Of an injunction that plain
tiff failed to point out any specific
methods or secret processes which II
was proposed to enjoin defendant from
! disclosing, since the general provision
Of the order prohibiting action In vio-
lation of defendants contract OF en-
ployment would be no more indefinite
than was the threatened injury, and, ii
the injunction was enforceable at all
it would be enforceable as well against
any disclosure as against any particu-
lar process or device When the SER
want terminated his contract and took
employment with another concern ir
the same line of business, but denied
that he intended to violate his contract
the court holds that an injunction re.
straining him from violating it woult
not be granted as a threat, since n
was az much bound by his contrac
not to disclose after taking up his new
employment as before.
MANDAiMUS AGAINST OFFICERS.
The question arose over the publica
ton Of notice preparatory to an exc
cution sale of realty. The sheriff, !
seems, was a stakeholder in and rathe
> partial to a newspaper called tn
Times" and wished to throw bushes
in that direction. On the other hand
the plaintiff wanted the "Rolla Her
ald' to furnish the publication. and 8
HOIII1Su LNS SLSI1Il, Out I6 OcCIluSO y
be so gracious, saying that he woul
e publish the notice where he pleased
D Revised Statutes 1909 Of Missouri, sec
ton 221s, provides that in executio
sales of realty notice thereof may
: given by publication in newspape
n designated by the plaintiff or his at
o torney. Mandamus to require the she,
{ IN to make the publication where de
y sired was sought, but as there wa
> nothing to show that the Herald" ha
e q larger circulation than the Times
u or that ssy injury would rea,lt fro.
y the sheriEs loolsing after his own II,
= tie intereak, tho Writ was denied: u
: Missouri court Of appeals declaring u
+ law to be that where a public dut
is sought 20 Ie enforced. Il. :.:sSs:: =
+ public generally II interested. BY pr
" vate citizens on behalf Of the publ
l. as well a. their own they may mo,
il for writ Of. mandamus, and are n,
u requiredsto Plead or prove amy specl
iel or particular interest in the 4result