Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/303

RECENT CASES. 287 Issue on prayer of the author to pr«irent further publication of the material so obtained. Gilbert v. Star Newspaper Co., 1 1 The Times Law Rep. 4. The jurisdiction of equity has been extensively invoked to prevent publication of private manuscripts of all kinds. Story Eq. Jur., § 943. Nor is such material in any way less protected because it has not been copyrighted. In that case relief must be sought through the Federal courts, but the State courts will exercise their common-law powers without specific statutory authority. Spilling on Extraordinary Relief, § 880. The suitor is seeking protection against a threatened irreparable injury to a well-recog- nized right of property, and his title to an injunction is unquestioned. The English courts hold under their statute that a dramatic composition is published on its first pre- sentation. Boucicault v. Chatterton, 5 Ch. D. 267. In America, however, it has been decided that a public presentation does not debar an author from applying subse- quently for copyright for his play, or deprive him of his right to equitable relief in case of unauthorized publication. Palmer v. Dewift, 47 N. Y. 532 ; Tompkins v. Halleck, 133 Mass. 32. In the principal case the play at the time of the publication complained of had not been seen by any one except the cast, and the author therefore was undoubt- edly entitled to the injunction. Equity — Specific Performance — Removal of Incumbrance pending Suit. — A contract for the sale of land to plaintiff provided for a deed containing full cove- nants with warranty; but before the delivery thereof a lis pendens in ejectment was filed against defendant, whereupon plaintiff refused to accept the deed, and brought a suit for specific performance. Before it came to trial, the defendant's title was cleared by a judgment in his favor in the ejectment suit. Held, that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance. Haffey v. Lynch, 38 N. E. Rep. 298 (N. Y.). Where, in consequence of a defect in his title, the vendor cannot perform a contract to convey real estate, equity will not grant a decree of specific performance because the court cannot enforce its judgment. Waterman on Spec. Perf., § 49. If a vendor has no title, or a defective title, to land which he contracts to sell, and subsequently obtains a perfect title, he can be compelled to perform his contract. Fry Spec. Perf., 3d. ed. 480. If the vendor perfects his title while action for specific performance is pending, equity can enforce the decree, and therefore the only objection against granting it is removed. The court say (p. 300), " A perfect title by the vendor is no part of the vendee's cause of action, and he is just as much entitled to equitable relief, and the equity of the court is just as competent to give it, whether the title of vendor was perfected before or after the commencement of the action." Evidence — Homicide — Admissions by Defendant induced by Promises OF Safety. — On an indictment for murder, an admission by defendant, an infirm and diseased old woman, that she caused a person to do the killing, made to a detective disgiused as a stave-getter, and induced by his statement that he was a good monger- doctor, and by his promise that if she would tell him all about it he would give her something so that she could not be caught, held admissible in evidence. State v. Harri- son, 27 S. E. Rep. 17 s (N. C). The general rule is, that a confession is admissible in evidence, unless obtained by temporal inducement, by threat, promise, or hope of favor held out to a party in respect to his escaj^e from the charge against him, by a person having authority over him. Joy on Confessions, §§ i, 2. The reason for the rule as generally given is that confessions so obtained are not reliable, as the person making them is likely to con- fess some crime that he has never committed, in order to avoid difficulties. In the principal case the detective had n(3 authority over the defendant when the confession was made, and his representations were not of a nature to induce an innocent person to confess a crime which he had never committed. Evidence — Privilege — Refusal to Testify. — Relator in this case was sum- moned as a witness before the grand jury in a criminal cause. In reply to questions propounded to him by the district attorney he testified, in the broadest terms, that he had no connection whatever with the transaction which was the subject of the inquiry. 'When, however, further and more particular questions were put, he refused to testify, claiming the privilege on the ground that the evidence would tend to criminate himself. For such refusal he was adjudged guilty of contempt by a justice of a court of oyer and terminer. Held, notwithstanding witness had testified generally that he was in no way connected with the criminal offence, yet where the circumstances are such as to place him in danger of a prosecution therefor, he may refuse to testify, on the ground that his evidence may tend to criminate him. People ex rel. Taylor y. Forbes, Justice, 38 N. E. Rep. 303 (N. Y.). This decision is consistent with the established rule. Chamberlayne's Best on Ev. (inter, ed.), 537. The judge below seems to have attached great weight to the