Notes of Cases per Bischoff, J., in ordering a new trial, said: "Unquestionably a conversation overheard between parties whose voices are recognized by the witness may be proven, and there is no ground for distinction, in principle, between such a case and that of a conversation by tele phone, which the witness overhears, where the actual connection between the instru ments is shown in such wise as to identify the very conversation, and the persons hold ing the conversation are known." INSURANCE. (Loss caused by civil authorities may include any action holding up rents.) Md.—Delay in rebuilding a structure the rents of which are insured, owing to re fusal of a permit by the municipal authori ties, so that the rents are not re-established as soon as they might otherwise be, is held, in Palatine Ins. Co. v. O'Brien, 68 Atl. 484, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1055, to be within the pro visions of the policy that the company will not be liable for loss caused by order of any civil authority. INSURANCE. (Parol evidence admissible to show estoppel, without waiver on policy in writing.) Ark.—Parol evidence of acts tending to show an estoppel upon an insurance company to take advantage of false answers in an application is held, in People's F.Ins.Asso. v. Coyne, 79 Ark. 315, 96 S. W. 365, 16 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1180, to be admissible, notwithstand ing provisions in the policy that no waiver shall be effective unless indorsed in writing on the policy at the home office of the in surer. With this case is an elaborate note collating the other authorities on the parol evidence rule as to varying or contradicting written contracts as affected by the doctrine of waiver or estoppel, as applied to insur ance policies. MONOPOLIES. (Contracts co-extensive with patent rights not invalidated by Sher man Act.) U. S. 0. 0.—In Blount Manufac turing Co. v. Yale cV* Towne Manufacturing Co., Mr. Justice Brown of the United States Circuit Court decided Jan. 19 in favor of the plaintiff, who had asked for an accounting in accordance with the terms of a contract with the defendant concerning the profits arising from the manufacture and sale of liquid door checks. It was held that a con tract, though of such a nature as to be in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act if it applied to ordinary articles of trade, does not conflict with that act if it is only co-extensive
131
with the monopoly conferred by letters patent, and creates no additional restraint of trade or monopoly. The Court quoted several de cisions in regard to the question, including that of the National Harrow Company v. Hench, 83 Fed. 36, 27 C. C. A. 349, 39 L. R. A. 299, in the third circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. But the Court added: "When no question of the value of the right of excluding others is involved, I am unable to find in the patent laws any reason for upholding an agreement for the suppression or restraint of trade in patented articles against the provisions of the Sherman act." MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Amend ment of charters.) Mass.—The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Graham v. Roberts, 85 N. E. Rep. 1009, finds new problems in St. 1908, p. 542, c. 574, amending the charter of Haverhill. It declares in the outset that the statute prescribes a very radical departure from the general methods of municipal gov ernment, and it is even doubted whether the practical working will be satisfactory to the people who have adopted it. The regula tions as to elections are principally assailed. They provide for a preliminary election for nominations for office, prohibit the use on the official ballot of the names of candidates named by nomination papers or by caucus, forbid the use of a statement of the candi date's party, and require that 25 voters shall request that a candidate's name be put on the ballot before it shall be placed there. These are held to be valid regulations of the election of municipal officers and not in con flict with Declaration of Rights, art. 9, pt. 1, providing that all elections ought to be free, and that the inhabitants of the common wealth have an equal right to elect officers and to be elected for public employments. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. (Notice as to defects in streets.) Minn.—The Waseca (Minn.) home rule charter restricts liabil ity for injuries on defective streets unless written notice of the defect has been filed with the city clerk ten days previous to the injury. This provision is seemingly unrea sonable in its sweeping restrictions. By it the unfortunate individual by some sort of necromancy must ascertain that he is about to be injured on a defective street and then notify the municipal authorities to guard against such an untoward occurrence. The Supreme Court of Minnesota in Schigley v.
