Of cocupation.] 800 CRIMINAL LAW, 699.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 679.
1. Conflict of law — rights of licensor of patent.] The defendant, a Connec-
ticut telephone company, had purchased from a Massachusetts telephone
company, owning the patent, the right to use its magnetic telephone system
for a certain period, on the condition that it should not permit telegraph com-
panies to use the system unless they had purchased the right from the Mass-
achusetts company. A statute of Connecticut provides that every telephone
company shall impartially permit persons and corporations to transmit
speech through its wires by its instruments. The plaintiff, a telegraph
company in Connecticut, not having purchased the right, sued to
compel the defendant to permit it to use the system. Held not main-
tainable. American Rapid Telegraph Company v. Connecticut Telephone
Company (Conn.), 237.
2. Contract to evade penal liability.] A telegraph company cannot by con-
tract evade a penal statutory liability for failure to transmit a message
correctly. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Adams (Ind.), 776.
3. Limitation of liability for negligence.] The sender of a telegram is charge-
able with notice of the printed conditions of the blank form on which
it is written. Womack v. Western Union Telegraph Company (Tex.), 614.
-] A limitation of liability for mistake in transmission thus provided
in case of unrepeated messages is lawful. ld.
The mere fact that the message as delivered at its destination differs
from that delivered for transmission, in a single letter, is not sufficient to
warrant a larger recovery than that provided for in the limitation. Id.
6. Negligence-damages.] The defendant telegraph company received from
a banking house, acting as agent for plaintiff, a message to another bank-
ing-house, directing the latter to protect the plaintiff's note. The sender
paid the price of repeating. The message never was delivered. Held, (1)
that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff; (2) that the damages should
not be measured by the limitation provided in case of repeated messages
in the blank form on which the message was written, but would embrace
all actual damages, including injury to credit; (3) but not exemplary
damages, in the absence of proof of express or implied authority or adop
tion by the company. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Brown
A telegraph company may lawfully limit its liabilities
for delays in transmitting and errors in delivering half-rate messages
in the night without repetition, by express contract, or by notice in the
telegraph blank used by and known to the sender, unless shown to
have been occasioned by misconduct, fraud or want of due care; and in
such case the receiver cannot recover more than the stipulated rate of
damages where he had reason to suspect an inaccuracy, and neglected to
VOL. XLIV — 107
TELEGRAPH COMPANY - Continued.
demand repetition, relying on the receiving operator's assurance of com
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Neill (Tex.), 589.
entirety.] See DEED, 361.
Proximate cause.] The defendant, an unlicensed liquor seller, on Sunday, in
violation of the statute, furnished D. intoxicating liquor to drink, upon
which D. became intoxicated and unconscious. The defendant put D. in
this condition into his vehicle, drawn by a gentle horse which he had
borrowed of the plaintiff; and by reason of his intoxication and inability
to manage the horse, it ran away and was killed. Held, that an action
would lie for its value. Dunlap v. Wagner (Ind.), 42.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 10.
1. Infringement — deceit — acquiescence.] A trade-mark may be acquired in
the words "Boker's Stomach Bitters," and it will not be defeated by the
plaintiff's unwarranted use of the word "imported" in connection with
it, unless such use is intended to deceive the public, nor by the plaintiff's
mere neglect to prosecute others who have infringed it. Funke v. Drey-
fus (La.), 413.
"Snowflake" crackers.] "Snowflake" is not a valid trade-mark for bread
or crackers. Larrabee v. Lewis (Ga.), 735.
Misspelled.] See CRIMINAL LAW, 708.
Bailed prisoner not present at.] See CRIMINAL LAW, 743.
Public-right of discrimination.] One who assumes to carry on the business
of a public warehouseman for the purchase of tobacco and the public sale
thereof at auction is bound to serve the public without discrimination,
and may not select his bidders nor reject any producer. Nash v. Page
(Ky.), 490.
Implied, on sale of stock.] See CORPORATION, 112,
children, and that on the death of the second child its share passed to its
parents. Biggs v. McCarty (Ind.), 320.
2. Devise during life, with power of disposal.
A testator devised his whole
estate to his wife," to have and to hold or to dispose of so much of the
same as she may need or wish to use during her life-time," and provided
that after her death if there is any thing left," it should be divided in
a specified way. Held, that the widow's power of disposal was absolute
and not limited to her life estate, but could only be exercised in case and
to the extent of her need. Henderson v. Blackburn (Ill.), 780.
3. Olographic - definition of.]
A will consisting in a printed form with the
blanks filled in the testator's handwriting is not an olographic will, and
no part of it can stand. Estate of Rand (Cal.), 555.
4. Parol evidence to explain.] A testator made a bequest to his namesake
"S. G., son of Captain J. F. S." Held, that evidence was admissible that
there was no person answering the description, and that the testator
intended S. G., son of Captain J. F. H. Hawkins v. Garland's Adminis-
trator (Va.), 158.
Infamy — statutory construction.] A statute enacted that no person should
be disqualified as a witness by reason of criminal conviction, but the con-
viction might be shown to affect his credibility, and that any defendant
in a criminal case might at his option be a competent witness. The stat
ute also specified certain crimes, conviction of which rendered the party
infamous. Held, that to impeach a defendant in a criminal case for
infamy, the judgment of the former conviction must be shown, and mere
evidence that he has been a convict in a State prison is inadequate. Bar-
tholomew v. People (Ill.), 97.
Husband and wife.] See CRIMINAL LAW, 708.
" Connections. See INSURANCE, 61.
"Good health."] See INSURANCE, 872.
"Olographic."] See WILL, 555.
"Other property."] See REPLEVIN, 184.
“Snowflake."] See TRADE-MARK, 735.
“Tools and apparatus."] See EXECUTION, COL.
|