176 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Munn V. ///., 94 U. S. 113, and Buddv, New York, 143 U. S. 517, affirmed. This case has certainly gone beyond those it affirms. In the latter, statutes of Illinois and >ew York regulating charges for the storage of grain were held constitu- tional, but as the statutes were limited in their application to the great grain and com- mercial centres of Chicago, Buffalo, New York, and Brooklyn, the decisions were based partly upon the fact that in those cities the grain business had become "a practical monopoly to which the citizen was compelled to resort." Mr. Justice Bradley and Mr. Justice Miller who concurred in the judgment in Munn v. ///., so qualified the lan- guage in that case. 99 U. S. 700, 747; 118 U. S. 557, 569. The Dakota statute, on the other hand, not only applies to all the warehouses throughout the State but even requires the warehouseman to pay the cost of insurance though it be more than he receives for his whole service. " I am at a loss," remarked Mr. Justice Brewer in his dissenting opinion, "to perceive at what point the fact of monopoly will cease and free- dom of business commence, for obviously elevators . . . were as plentiful as other institu- tions of industry and as easily and cheaply constructed." Field, Jackson, and White, JJ. also dissented. CoNiRACT — Restraint of Trade. — Held, A combination of a number of brewers to enable the members who have entered into it to control the price of beer within the city, is illegal, being in restraint of trade. A'ester v. Continental Brewing Co., 29 Atl. Rep. 102 (Pa.). This result has been reached almost invariably where an agreement has tended to raise prices, destroy competition, or create a monopoly. Central Shade A'oller Co. v. Cushrnan, 143 Mass. 353, goes farthest of any case in supporting such a combination. It is possible to distinguish that case from the principal case, in that the restraint of trade there was not for an article of prime necessity or a staple of commerce, while in the principal case, assuming that beer is not an article of prime necessity, the court treats it as a staple of commerce, since it is an article of daily consumption. Copyright in Paintings, — Infringement of by Living Pictures — Act. 25 and 26 Vict. c. 68, s. i, provides that the author of every original painting shall have " the exclusive right of copying, engraving, reproducing and multiplying such painting and the design thereof by any means, and of any size for the term of his natural life." HeU,ie representation of a picture hy 2i ta Idea u zivjant, iormed by grouping in the same way as in the picture, living persons dressed in the same way and placed in the same attitudes as the figures in the picture, is not an infringement of copyright, d/auf- staengl v. Empire Palace L. R , [1894] 2 Chan Div. i. Th ' decision is put on the ground t' at the Copyright Act was intended ' to restrain people from producing something which would compete in the market with the originals or with authorized copies of them." The question of the pai' ted canvas ' ac grounds of the " living pictures " which were exact copies of the backgrounds of the originals, was expressly left open by agreement. It would seem, however, to be decided by the remarks quoted above. Sketches of the tableaux vivants were published in the " Daily Graphic," and the author of the originals sought to restrain the " Graphic " from publishing them, but an injunction was refused. 29 Law Journal, 369. The court said, " The sketches were not calculated to interfere either with the artist's reputation or with the commercial value of his work." Ckiminal 1 aw — Carrying Concealed "W batons. — Held (overruling the de- cision in State v. Harrison, 93 N. C. 605), that one who carries a concealed weapon for the purposes of sale is guilty under the statute against carrying concealed weapons, the criminal intent in ?uch cases being the intent to carry the weapon concealed, not an intent to do any damage with it. State v. Dixon, 19 S. E. Rep. 364 (N. C). The courts of North Carolina seem now to have reached the true interpretation of their statute against carrying concealed weapons. The trial judge said truly: "That if one could borro v or procure a pistol to sell, or convey it about for several months trying to sell it, and shooting some five times on a picnic occasion, the statute would be a dead letter " Damages — Railway Accident — Insanity. — "Where a passenger on a railway is made insane by the excitement of a collision but is uninjured bodily, the company is not liable therefor, as such insanity is not a natural and probable result of the accident. Haile's Curator v. Texas &^ P. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 557 (La.). As long as Schaffer y. Ry., 105 U. S 249, remains good law in the United States courts such decisions as this are necessitated by authority. It is very doubtful, how- ever, if in either of these cases the court were warranted in assuming without reference to a jury that insanity was not a natural and probable result of a railway accident. Loss of power, whether mental or physical, would seem a legitimate item in damages ; and
