The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-02-08
CASES OF INTEREST

ventor of shoe machinery entered into contract with the United Shoe Man. ufacturing Company to assign to the company all inventions and patents which he should make during his ern- pI0yneEt and for ten years thereaf- ter The employment continued three years. When it ceased, the inventor took out a patent which he refused to assign, and the suit entitled United Shoe Machinery Company V. La Cha belle. 99 Northeastern Reporter, 2S9- is to compel such assignment. De- fendant defends on the ground that pLalnt1H maintains a monopoly of all of footwear, which is an irlfractfon of the Federal Antitrust ct. and since the contract to assign is one in di- rect aid to such monopoly it cannot be enforced. He alleges that plain tiff has achieved it's monopoly of man u1actuue and trade and commerce be- tween the several states of the Union by contracting with 95 per cent. of the inventors of all machinery for the entire product of their skill so that it now controls from 90 to s5 per cent. of all the shoe machinery in the Unit ed States. The interesting question then arises: Since the holder of 9 patent is given an absolute monopoly of the invention covered thereby, does a com bination among several pat entees Of competing devices fall with in the inhibition of the statute? The Supreme Court of Massachusetts holds that the monopoly protected by a pat ent goes no further than the inven- ton and contractura1 obligations at tached to it. It does not protect oth- CT commercial ventures attempted by the owner, even though directly or re- motely they may relate to the inveTl- Ilon; Coqnoinat1ons among patendees resulting in extended monopoly are il- legal. sNo words nor phrase in the Sherman Antitrust Act reevalS an intent to exempt the owners of pat ents from it's sweeping provisions against n1onopolfsttc cof1Tbinatton.' .' The contract in question, 1t is trues did not relate primarily to interstate coTnnaerc being one for labor and skill alone and having nothing to do with the transportation of goods. But it was made by one having 9 monop- oly of one branch of trade and was a necessary link in a chain of con- tracts essential to the monopoly. The court says: "AS a. single incident, it may be harmless. As an integral part ing commerce between the states which cannot be perpetuated success fully without contracts of like tenor with all practfcing like craft, it par takes of the il1ega1ity of the scheme Defendants exceptions are sustained.
 LrBEI. IN A NOVEL. Gratuitous ability to dispose of copious supplies of eatabdes with perfect grace and equipoise are not always considered hattery. A So-calIed novel was re- gently published called The Heart Line,'' in which the following appear ed: "Amd Daily, the Star Eater of the Palace Hotel-ne used to have ed one, and used only the juice from the others. He ordered soup at dol- lar a plate, and he had a happy way of buyingsa- case of champagne with each meal. drinking only the top glass from each bottde," This was the cause of a suit for libel. which may Supplement. 570, under the style of Dailey V. Bobbs- Merrill Company. Plaintiff alleged that the description was meant to refer to himself. The which contained the remark was a novel; and that therefore the char titious, created wholly by the author, and could not have been libelous of plaintiff. The Supreme Court of New York did not approve of this defense, however, saying that the use of the word s'novel' did not necessarily con- tradfct or render nugatory the al1ega- ton that the article in question re- fart-ed to the plaintiff, but neverthe- less refused to allow recovery, hold ing that the words were not ambig- tBous were easily understoods and had but one obvious irnport--a haTTnless one.
 LINK AND CT1AIN THEORY OF EVIDENCE RIBECTEDe There is 9 that circumstantial evidence is to be considered as a, chain, of which each circumstance relied upon constitutes separate and distinct link. This idea is rejected by the Criminal Court of Appeals of Ol11ahorna. In Ex pafte Hayes, 11s Pacific Reporter, eos, the eourt says: We think that the apA plication of the chain theory to cir cuInstantial evidence is improper. No chain is stronger than it's weakest link, and will never pull or bind more than it's weakest link will stand. With it's weakest link broken, the power of ta1e@ chain is gone; butt it is altogether different with a, cable. Its strength does not depend upon, one strand, but is made up of a union and eombina- ton Of the strength of all it's strands. No o1ae wire of the cable that sup- ports the suspension bridge across Ni- agara Falls could stand much weight, but when these different strands are all combined together they support a structure which is capabIe of sus- taining the weight of the heaviest en- zines and trains. We therefore think that it is erroneous to speak of cir- cunstantia1 evidence as depending up- on links. for the truth is that in eases if circumstantia1 evidence each fact relied upon is simply considered as one of the strands and all of the facts relied upon should be treated as a cable
 WHO GETS THE TIPs2 A case somewhat novel in character is that western Reporter. 935. The plaintiff, a young Greek, who had just come to this country, was employed by the defendant in his shoe-sf1ining eInpo- tract and the wages agreed upon were paid him. During the two years of his service for the defendant, how ever, he was given tips by customers whose work he had done, and these daily tips the plaintiff turned over to the defendant each night. Knowing nothing of our customs, and not be- ing able to understand our language, he did not know. that the tips given to him were intended by the donors as gifts to him This action was brought to recover such tips. De- fendant interposed as a. defense that there was an agreement between them that the tips should belong to de- fendant. The Supreme Court of Iowa holds that in the absence of an agree ment tips belong to the ernploye, and that the burden of proving an agree