The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-12
DECEPTIVE IMITATIoN OF TEL

DECEPTIVE IMITATION OF TEL EGRAM FOR ADVERTISING PUR- POSES-Defendant,a a manufa cturer of advertising speciaIties. put out an en-
 velope similar to those used by com plainant telegraph company for teIe- grams, intending that the envelo, es should be used for advertising purpos- es, the word 'sTeIegram,'' prin ed thereon, being used to attract atten- ton and to distinguish the envelopes. which were to be sent through the mail, from ordinary mail matter. Com plainant sued to res rain such use, al- leging that the envelopes were used to deceive the public and cause them to believe that they were the envelopes Of the complainant, and that they con tained messages transmitted over com plainant's wires and delivered by com plainant; that defendants envelopes had been general mistaken by the pub lie, by the posta authorities, and es- pecially by complainants patrons. for the envelopes of the complainant, and had induced the public and complain ants patrons to give to the envelopes that prompt and immediate attention which was usually given to telegraph 1c messages; and that the same would cause annoyance to complainant's pa irons and an injury to complaf nant s business. The United States Circuit
 Court. in Postal re egraPh-CabIe CO
 vs. Livermore & Knight CO, 1Ss Fed eral Reporter, 6S6, holds that since the
 deception, if the use of such envelopes were deceptive at all. was merely mo-
 
 ants claim of injury was deiTved en- tirely from differences based on anoth- er inference, and that the facts were insufficient to establish actionable in jury.
 THE wORKMAN's 'sCOAfPENSATT ACT HELD CONSTITUTIONAL Industrial Insurance Law, commonly known as ''The Workman's Compen- sation Act" has been held consetitu- tional by the Supreme Court of Wash Reporter, 11o1. This act, which under takes. by requiring contributions from employers to an accident or insurance fund, to provide fixed and certain re- lief for workmen injured in extra hazardous work and for families and dependents regardless of questions of fault or negl 'gence, to the exclusion of every other remedy or compensa-
 provides that no employer shall ex- eEnpt himself from the burden or waive the benefits Of the act Try any contract, agreement, or regulation, and
 that any such contract or regula ton shall be pro tanto void, is held not an interference with the right to contract, since there is no absolute right to do as one wills, pursue any ealing one desires, or contract as one chocs cses, and since the term liberty means absence e of arbitrary restra int, and not immun- l fty from reasonable regulations and | provisions imposed in the Interests of the community. The court also held that it does not violate the constitu-
 tfonal provision which prohltTts class ! legislation, is not objectionable as a
 denial to owners of property equal protection of the laws, and is not a
 viola ion of the constitutional provis- ion that property shall be taxed ac- l cording to its value in money, and
 that all taxation shah be equal and
 uniform.
 ExCURsIoNIsT DROwNs-An ex- | cursion steamer eft her dock with a l barge in tow to which was attached a yawl made fast to the stern of the barge by a fve-foot line. A deck hand remained seated In the yawl unt
 the boat arrived at an island, where | he left the yawl and stood on the
 barge near the line. Subsequently he went forward on the barge to get
 water, and while doing so. decedent.
 an Intoxicated youth, hauled the yawl 10 the stern of the barge and boarded
 her, without knowledge of the master. l The deck hand, on returning, found
 members of the committee in charge | of the excursion urgFn ng the decedent
 to leave the yawl, and it was upon 1 comp lance to such requests and the
 orders of the deck hand that the dece- l dent slipped or stumbled and was pre- cipitated into the river. His com l panion, also in the yawl, grabbed him, | but could not retain tfS hold, and in 1 spite of prompt efforts at a rescue he
 was drowned The United States Dis trict Court in Gretschmann vs. Fix LeS EeueIaI nepoit te1' tto' -holoS thdl
 decedent was guilty of cOntributory negligence and that that was the prox- l innate cause of his death. It was con- i tended that the owners of the cam CT were liable because they failed to Ecomply with Inspectors Rule 8, 4, providing that every barge carry:ns passengers in. tow, and engaged in ex- Cu~sfors. sba- be supplied with two yawl boats, one of which must be mel h. ned and lowed in such manner as to hest afford prompt relief tn case of ac- eident or disaster. The court holds that under the circumstances of the
 case the failure to comply with the
 steamer owners liable
 | INCIrBAToR RABE CAUSES MUCH lLITTGATTCfN.-iMa B. upon her