84 HARVARD LAW REVIEW that the evidence was properly admitted. Morris &" Co. v. Industrial Board, 119 N. E. 944 (III.). Workmen's compensation laws frequently exempt industrial boards from the common-law rules of evidence. See 1914, Consol. Laws N. Y., c. 64, Art. 4, § 68; Page and Adams, Ann. Orao Gen. Code, §§ 1465-44; Bul- letin No. 203, U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 284. In Illinois, however, there is no such statutory provision, and so the common-law rules apply. Victor Chemical Works v. Industrial Board, 274 111. 11, 113 N. E. 173; Goelitz Co. v. Industrial Board, 278 111. 164, 115 N. E. 855. See 1917, Hurd's Rev. Stat. III., c. 48, § 141. By the weight of authority in the United States a coroner's verdict is not admissible either in civil or criminal actions to prove the cause of death. Mtna Life Ins. Co. v. Milward, 118 Ky. 716, 82 S. W. 364; Wasey v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 126 Mich. 119, 85 N. W. 459. Illinois, on the contrary, follows the early English rule, admitting the coroner's verdict as a judicial record and hence as an exception to the hearsay rule. United States, etc. Ins. Co. V. Vocke, 129 111. 557, 22 N. E. 467; Armour di* Co. v. Industrial Board, 273 111. 590, 113 N. E. 138. See 15 Harv. L. Rev. 664. The Illinois courts are apparently influenced by a statute which provides that coroner's verdicts shall be recorded. See 1917, Kurd's Rev. Stat. III., c; 31, § 19. According to the Illinois doctrine, the decision in the principal case is therefore correct. On principle, however, the prevailing American rule seems preferable. In view of the hurried and careless manner in which inquests are frequently conducted, the coroner's verdict, though relevant in determining the cause of death, is of slight probative value and should not be excepted from the operation of the hearsay rule. Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Ross Lewin, 24 Colo. 43, 51 Pac. 488; Kane v. Lodge, 113 Mo. App. 104, 87 S. W. 547. Injunction — Invasion of Franchise Right by Public Service Cor- poration HAVING NO License to do Business. — A pubhc service com- mission had authority to Ucense a duplication of service by a competing public utility if required by public necessity. An established and licensed telephone company sought to enjoin the defendant telephone company, which was be- ginning construction in the same municipality without a license from the commission. Held, that a . permanent injunction was properly granted. Farmers' &• Merchants' Co-op. Telephone Co. v. Boswell Telephone Co., 119 N. E. 513 (Ind.). The mere usurpation of a public privilege cannot, without more, consti- tute a private wrong to another public utility. Jersey City Gaslight Co. v. Consumers' Gas Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 427, 2 Atl. 922; Cojfeyville M. 6* G. Co. v. Citizens' Natural M. 6* G. Co., 55 Kan. 173, 40 Pac. 326. But where the plaintiff's special interests or property rights are threatened, equity will grant relief. Williams et al. v. Citizens' Ry. Co., 130 Ind. 71, 29 N. E. 408; City Ry. Co. v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 166 U. S. 557, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 653; Hudspeth v. Hall, III Ga. 510, 36 S. E. 770; Douglass's Appeal, 118 Pa. St. 65, 12 Atl. 834. And a franchise is a contractual or proprietary right. Bartlesville E. L. &* P. Co. V. Bartlesville I. Ry. Co., 26 Old. 453, 109 Pac. 228; Millville Gas Co. v. Vineland L. &• P. Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 305, 65 Atl. 504; Louisville v. Cumberland T. Co., 224 U. S. 649, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 572. Moreover, an exclusive mo- nopoly is universally considered a property right, and an illegal interference will be enjoined. Croton Turnpike v. Ryder, i Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 611; N.O. Gas Co. V. N. 0. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252; Atlantic City W. W. Co. V. Atlantic City, 39 N. J. Eq. 367. A franchise not exclusive in its terms is exclusive against those having no license to compete, and should be dealt with similarly. Delaware &* R., etc. Co. v. Camden b" A., etc. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 546; Millville Gas Co. v. Vineland L. 6* P. Co., supra. See Patterson v. W'oll- mann, 5 N. D. 608, 611, 67 N. W. 1040, 1042, and cases cited. See also
