Mrs. Levy Mayer, widow of the
celebrated Chicago attorney who died a year ago, presented $500,000 to
Northwestern University 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 rgime of
Dean Wigmore. Some years ago Judge Elbert H. Gary 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 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.
