Law: Levy Mayer’s Memorial

Mrs. Levy Mayer, widow of the celebrated Chicago attorney who died a year ago, presented $500,000 to Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) for the erection of a new Law School building. It will be named Levy Mayer Hall, and ground for it will be broken early next Spring. The Dean of the Northwestern University School of Law is Colonel John H. Wigmore. He is the author of a Treatise on Evidence—the most celebrated treatise of its kind ever written. During the War, he was General Enoch H. Crowder’s right-hand man in the formulation of the principles governing the Selective Service Draft. He is widely acquainted with the jurisprudence of other countries as well as with that of the U. S. No law teacher is better known to the profession.

This is not the first large gift which has been made to the Northwestern University Law School under the régime of Dean Wigmore. Some years ago Judge Elbert H. Gary (U. S. Steel) gave a large amount of money for library purposes. The library is named after him.

The late Levy Mayer was a personality as interesting as Dean Wigmore. For years he was a leader of the Chicago Bar, specializing in business and corporation practice. He was also an authority on theatrical law. He was reputed to have had an income comparable to that of Samuel Untermyer or Max D. Steuer, both of whom are said to make (in Manhattan) at least $500,000 per annum.*

Shoes, Hat, Pants

In Los Angeles, Charles S. Chaplin, screen comedian, obtained a temporary injunction preventing the showing of films in which one Charles Amador copies the old time Chaplin makeup, including his famous silly derby hat, half-portion mustache, baggy pants, enormous and weird shoes and nimble bamboo cane. Amador contended that neither Chaplin, nor anyone else, for that matter, is entitled to a monopoly of such a makeup, which was used among the natives “even in the time of King Tut-ankh-Amen.” While a temporary injunction was obtained, there has been no permanent decision.

Though it would be difficult to name a case directly in point, it would seem clear that, on principle, the courts should protect the good-will and good repute which have been built up by Mr. Chaplin in his distinctive makeup, on principles of the law of unfair competition. An analogy is found in the case of Weinstock v. Marks, 109 Cal. 529, 42 Pacific Rep. 142, decided by the Supreme Court of California, the same state where the Chaplin case comes up. In the Weinstock case, the defendant resorted to the erection of a duplicate building alongside the mercantile house of a successful trader. It was built so similarly as to deceive the public. Injunctive relief was granted to the plaintiff and the court commanded the defendant to distinguish his building from that in which the plaintiff was carrying on his business, so as to sufficiently indicate to the public that it was separate.

While the Chaplin case comes to the legal fraternity in an entirely new guise, it seems reasonable to believe that the mere circumstance that the schemers have concocted a kind of deception heretofore unheard of in jurisprudence is no reason why a court of equity should be either unwilling or unable to deal with the situation. The plain intent was, of course, to palm off Amador as another Chaplin, or as Chaplin himself, and this very kind of thing has been forbidden repeatedly by the Court of Appeals of New York State. (White Studio, Inc. v. Dreyfoos, 221 N. Y. 46, where the court said: “Unfair competition may result from representations or conduct which deceive the public into believing that the business name, reputation or goodwill of one person is that of another”; citing numerous authorities.)

Absolutely no question of copyright or patent is involved, but simply the question of whether, upon principles of unfair competition, as enunciated by courts of equity, Amador is acting conscionably and equitably in wearing shoes, a hat, trousers, etc., identical to those adopted and familiarized to all the world by Charles Chaplin.

A Strike

The lawyers of Sicily have gone on strike, and no cases are being heard before the courts because of the lack of counsel. The reason for the strike—a tax has been imposed upon Sicilian attorneys for the exercise of their profession. The Royal Commissioner refused the lawyers any relief. They walked out.

* Mr. Steuer, in an affidavit made by him upon an application for counsel fee in a divorce suit, recently stated that he never obtains less than $1,000 a day for his appearance in court. This leaves out of account his fees for office work and advice.