186
The Green Bag
of the efforts of the fire department could not be offered, it was reasonable to expect that it would have been able to prevent the spread of flames, especially as all the paraphernalia for fire protection were available. Libel. Freedom of the Press—Duties of the Press. N. Y. The New York Supreme Court, Part VI, in deciding that a newspaper was justified by the truth of the article in accusing a druggist of selling adulterated goods, expressed the following opinion:— "The defendant was engaged in the publi cation of a newspaper, not merely for the dissemination of news, but with the addi tional purpose of upholding a high standard of public decency and morals in the com munity, and it was not merely its right, but its duty, in connection with a public and official proceeding of the kind in question, to publish, truthfully, so much of the facts as with decency it could publish, so that even if the machinery of the criminal law proved inadequate to reach malefactors of this class, who traffic for gain in human life and health and seek to promote immoral practices, they might be held up to public scorn and con tempt." Weiss v. New York Times (Feb. 18, 1909). Libel. Publication—Letter Opened by Other than Addressee. England. The English Court of Appeal, in Sharp v. Skues, decided Feb. 15, held that where a letter containing defamatory matter had been addressed personally to the member of a firm and was opened and read by his partner, and the jury had found that according to the sender's knowledge it was unlikely that the letter would in the ordinary course of business be opened by the partner or a clerk, the sender was not responsible for the publication. He had not intended a publication and the facts did not amount to a publication of the libel by himself. Livestock. Interstate Commerce Act— Twenty- Eight Hour Law—Congestion of Traffic no Excuse. U. S. Congestion of traffic does not free railroad companies from penalties for failure to observe the twenty-eight hou* stock law, was the effect of an opinion rendered Feb. 15 by Judges Van Devanter, Hook and Adams in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a decision of the Wyoming Federal Court. The
Union Pacific was defendant in a suit brought by the government under the interstate com merce law, which requires livestock not to be in transit more than twenty-eight hours with out unloading for rest, feed and water. U. S. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co. Master and Servant. Scope of Employ ment— Negligence. Mass. In Smith v. Peach, in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk (January, 1909, 86 N. E. Rep. 908), it appeared that defendant, who kept a livery stable, employed the owner of a gun as his foreman and driver. The gun was left on defendant's premises for defendant's use, but the owner subsequently resumed possession of it, and while exhibit ing it to a friend it was discharged and plain tiff was injured. The owner of the gun showing it to a friend had nothing to do with any service connected with his employ ment. The Court said:— "The plaintiff, before he can recover, must establish that either the defendant's foreman in discharging the gun acted within the scope of his employment, or the defendant himself was negligent in leaving the loaded gun in his office. Upon the evidence neither proposition can be maintained." Miners' Wages. Right to Regulate Weights and Measures— Freedom of Contract — Police Power. U. S. A state statute prohibiting miners to con tract for wages upon the basis of screened coal, instead of that of the weight of the coal as originally produced, was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States (Jan. 1909) as a valid exercise of the police power, in McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539, 29 Sup. Ct. R. 208. The Court declared :— "We are unable to say . . . that this law had no reasonable relation to the protection of a large class of laborers in the receipt of their just dues and in the promotion of the harmonious relations of capital and labor engaged in a great industry in the state. Laws tending to prevent fraud and to require honest weights and measures in the trans action of business have frequently been sus tained in the courts, although, in compelling certain modes of dealing, they interfere with the freedom of contract." Monopolies. Anti-Trust Laws of Texas— Retroactive Legislation— Fines. U. S. The United States Supreme Court in WatersPierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 29 Sup.
