The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-01-18
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.


The Court Of Appeals In O'Brien vs.
Erie Railroad. holds that II the engineer
Of a railroad train sees any ono on the
track ahead OF him he has n right to
assume that the person on the track will
leave II In time to escape Injury. The
court also held that the engineer was
bound to exercise only reasonable care in
the management OF the train that negli-
gencc could not be attributed to the de-
PENDANT for running through q country
district at the rate OF speed stated. nor
to a failure on the part Of the engineer
to have his train under control In APP
preaching a curve In expectation or ind
ing some one upon the track.
A stringent rule as to the admission
In evidence Of privileged communications
Is laid down by the Court OF Errors and
Appeals Of New Jersey In State VS.. Lo-
ponio, In which the court holds that
where legal advice Of any kind Is sought
from duly accredited professional legal
adviser In his capacity as such the COM
munications relevant to that purpose
made in confidence by the client. are at
his Instance permanently protected from
disclosure by himself. or by the legal ad-
wiser or by the agent OF either confiden-
TALLY used to transmit the communica-
ton, except the client valves the protec-
tlon."
The rule is applied that communica-
lions made for the sake OF employing an
attorney are privileged, although he sub
sequently refuses the employment. and 1t
Is specifically held that where "a prisoner
charged with murder who is unable to
write English employs fellow prisoner
AZ an amanuenss to write confidential
letter to employ n lawyer for the defence
the communication Is privileged and, X
surrendered by the amanuensis to de-
tective, cannot be used as evidence on the
trial. nor can the amanuensis be permitted
to testify to what was thus dictated to
him in confidence.
Tho legal definition OF u picture within
the meaning OF the New York statute
prohibiting the USE of persons picture
I by others for business purposes without
' his permission Is laid down in the opinion
of the Court of Appeals in the suit Of
John r. Binns agains. the Vitagraph
Company OF America, in which Judg-
ment for Binns was affirmed. The de-
PENDANT contended that II didn't use the
picture Of Binns. and on this point the
court ruled:
| "a picture within the meaning of the
statute Is not necessarily photograph of
the living person, but includes any repre-
sentation OF such person. The picture
represented by the defendant to be a true
picture Of the plaintiff and exhibited TO
the public AS such was intended to be.
/ and II was a representation Of the plain
/ tin. The defendant is in no position to
| say that the picture does not represent
the plaintiff or that IL was an actual pic
ture OF person made up TO look like and
impersonate the plaintiff"
, The frs. reported instance of the use
Of moving pictures as evidence Is thus de-
scribed by Lar Notes:
Probably the first instance in which
motion pictures have been produced in
court as evidence recently occurred In the
United States District Court on the trial
! ut boston OF the United Shoe Machinery
Company and its officers for violation OF
the sherman antitrust act For nearly
an hour pictures We're displayed and eX.
plalned which photographed every phase
Of the shoe manufacturing process Al
the conclusion OF the exhibition II Is SAID
that the presiding Judge we'll under
stood the operation that not single ques-
ton was necessary 10 be asked by him
II would hardly seem that In case such
as that mentioned any question could b.
raised as TO the admissibility OF such evil
dence. q proper foundation having beer
laid. Its value is incapable of estimate
for not only does 1t take the place of days
Of taking testimony explained by charts
and models but II really places the judge
in position to comprehend the other eNi
dcncc in the case. which is 10 great ex
tent impossible when charts and model.
are relied or The field for this class %
evidence Is. however confined in It's scope
To- a proper foundation could not IN mos
Instances he laid, owing TO changed con
di;iuns In master and servant case.
where the manner OF operating machincry
il material. IL might often b. used as .
Substitute for models and examinations
and this is n class of evidence on whlcl
tho poriias might asr,. 70 IT, ,dn,lsslo,
In many r,s.s In any event tho court,
bave now n nr.caaen, FIR tho odn,issIo,
M such ayidsu,. and "a. douh, No, Ina
,n.,,nc.s ~ II. odn,issin, ,n,v ma, h, in
s.aa,,ou, f., ,ho ,,,,,,r,
"
.r,, ,,.o., ,...,.,.., ,.,..,,.,,. Att, ,.,,,,.
Nv H.,' t''',H''.S - ,, .in
Ss' 80 -. 80, I 800, -
Wy 49,. H.
, "h a. ~ 80.
~. '"' 500 oo'i'a W 80 Ill.,
s', no ,'uo'''"' .' ~,
,o''i'Va ~ 't' - ~,
~" ~ "sn -. III 49,,
'Pp 49,: .'' 49,. 81 t,,, ~, t 49,
7 .ht. -, is az, Observation-Disclosures, r., ,,,t,
'4''" ''A'' - 'A'' - l's''''