NOTES OF RECENT CASES 33 Colo. 94, 80 Pac. Rep. 114. The United States Supreme Court held that there was no constitu tional objection to the law making the decision of the council conclusive on the question of the sufficiency of the preliminary petition, but that at some stage of the proceedings property owners must be given opportunity to appear and be heard, and that failure in this regard rendered the assessment invalid. COPYRIGHTS. (Infringement.) U.S. Sup. Ct. — Publishers and the general reading public will find matters of interest in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 28 Sup Ct. Rep. 722. Plaintiffs were publishers of a copyrighted book in which they inserted immediately below the copyright notice the following: " The price of this book at retail is $i net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright. The Bobbs-Merrill Company." Defendants purchased copies of the book from wholesale dealers with knowledge of the above notice but without agreeing to be bound thereby. They then sold them at 89 cents each. Plain tiffs sought to restrain continuation of the sales, but their bill was dismissed by the circuit court and its decree affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. They then appealed to the Supreme Court, but were again unsuccessful. The court said that while the right to multiply and sell copies in the first instance was secured by the copyright law, the right to " vend " given by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes could not be construed as attaching to the book after title had passed from the owner of the copyright nor could such an effect be brought about by the notice above referred to. CRIMINAL LAW. (Exclusion of Witnesses.) Cal. Ct. of App. —The California Court of Appeals in People v. Oliver, 95 Pac. Rep. 172. holds that it is entirely proper for the trial court in a criminal prosecution to refuse to exclude from the court room a witness who is an officer active in the prosecution and who remains for the purpose of advising the prosecuting attorney as to the facts and interest and character of witnesses. DEATH. (Right of Alien Widow and Children to Maintain Action.) U. S. C. C., Wash. — The statute of Washington giving a right of action for wrongful death is construed by the United States Circuit Court for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Washington in Roberts v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 161 Fed. Rep. 239, with reference to its application to an action for the benefit of a non-resident alien widow. The
535
court remarks on the conflict of authorities and cites and follows McMillan v. Spider Lake S. & L. Co.. 115 Wis. 332, 91 N. W. 979, 60 L. R. A. 589, 95 Am. St. Rep. 947, holding that no recovery can be had. DEEDS. (Restrictions against Conveyance to Colored Persons.) Va. — Is a corporation organ ized to establish and carry on an amusement park exclusively for colored people within the restriction in a deed providing that " The title to this land never to vest in a person or persons of African descent"? The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals was called upon to answer the above question in People's Pleasure Park Co v. Rohleder. 61 S. E. Rep. 794. The court refers to the rule of construction against favoring condi tions subsequent and to the legal entity of a corporation as distinguished from its member ship, and decides that the restriction is not vio lated. This is an interesting instance of the common rule that a corporation, whatever its membership, is a legal entity. It is no more extreme than that English case where it was held that vessels belonging to a corporation organized under Eng lish laws could be registered as belonging to British owners although all the stockholders were residents of Holland. ELECTION. (Jurisdiction of Election Contest.) Idaho. — In Toncray v. Budge, 95 Pac. Rep. 26, the Idaho Supreme Court was called upon to determine a number of knotty questions relative to the validity of an election contest law of that state. The proceeding was instituted in the district court by an elector to test the right of defendant to hold the office of district judge on the ground of alleged constitutional ineligibility. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in the district court and of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Under the statutes of the state, jurisdiction in contests of election of district judges is vested in the Supreme Court, but the constitution states that " district courts have original jurisdiction in all cases both at law and equity," and complainant claimed that if the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court was meant to be exclusive, the statute would be in conflict with this constitutional provision. The court held, however, that an election contest is a proceeding of entirely statutory origin and not necessarily nor innately of a judicial nature. That being true, it followed that when the right was created by the legislature that body had the power to designate what tribunal or board should exercise jurisdiction. Another claim of com plainant was to the effect that a constitutional
