employees already in the service of their employer; in other words, whether an employer who establishes new or amended conditions of employment may force his staff, presently employed, to sign them or whether such conditions only apply to those persons hired subsequent to the adoption of the amendments.

A recent case clarifying this question involved an employee who was requested to sign the new conditions, but refused to do so on the grounds that during the time he had been working for the employer he had not been requested to do so. Subsequently, however, he agreed to sign, but with a reservation of several exceptions. He was given the alternative of either signing or being discharged, and chose the latter course. He claimed indemnity for unjust dismissal. The employer's defense was that the conditions of employment were fair and that hence when the employee refused to sign, there was no recourse but dismissal. The lower court agreed with the statement of facts, but observed that "denial to comply with conditions which form an essential part of the contract of employment is illicit cause for dismissal, especially in that the conditions under consideration did not violate in any way the rights which the law confers upon employees and/or workmen."

On appeal, it was held that conditions of employment may be formulated subsequent to the engagement of an employee and the refusal by him to sign constitutes a serious breach of discipline which Justifies dismissal.

The decision, reported by the Legal Digest, Volume II, No. 38, is said to be the first of its kind, and is considered to be of importance in clarifying the issue in question. It presumably establishes the right of the court to judge the fairness of the conditions of employment imposed.

Company Law, Reserve Funds. El Cronista Comercial reports a case of apparent conflict as between the Federal Commercial Code and recent legislation of the Province of Santa Fe. Article 363 of the Commercial Code provides that corporations must set aside a minimum of 2 percent of their profits as a reserve fund and that such fund must amount to a minimum of 10 percent of its capital. It further adds that this fund must always be reconstituted in case it should have been reduced for any cause.

Recently the legislation of the Province of Santa Fe has provided in Article 7 of its new organic law of the Banco Provincial that "the reserve funds and similar provisions of corporations with juridical character granted by the Provincial Government, whether they be in cash or in holdings, must be deposited free of any claim (a titulo gratuito) in banks at Rosario, Santa Fe, or their respective branches or agencies."

As was expected, this law is opposed by business organizations on the grounds that it is unconstitutional in that it conflicts with the Federal Commercial Code. Consequently, it is probable that the issue will eventually be carried to the Supreme Court.

Labor. Employer-Employee, Compensation. In a recent case covering an accident indemnity claim, the courts ruled that the contractor of labor is responsible for accidents sustained by workmen in his

employ. This case was appealed and the original decision confirmed. Consequently, it should serve as a guiding precedent.

The workman injured had also claimed against the owner of the property upon which he was working, but the court decided that the property owner should not be held responsible. On appeal, the judgment was sustained by a two to one decision.

The reasoning in the case was, that while jurisprudence in Argentina has not been uniform, it is logical to presume that indemnities arising by obligation of law should be the responsibility of those employers who are continuously engaged in the one line of activity; that is, as in this case, the contractor and builder, rather than the owner, the latter being considered as only temporarily concerned with the business in question. The owner, according to the decision, is not, in a strictly legal sense, an employer, nor in the industrial or commercial sense of the term, as referred to in the law providing for indemnity for labor accidents.

Industrial Property, Trade Marks. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, it was declared that the trade mark law does not authorize the Chief of the Trade Mark Office the right to decide what is, or is not, to the best public interest, when the firm concerned has already given its consent. In the case at hand, an Argentine company applied for the trademark Sol, to be used in connection with footwear and accessories. The Company obtained from Lever Brothers, owners of the trade mark Sun, for soaps, permission to use the mark Sol. In spite of this permission, the trade mark office and the court of first instance rejected the application on the grounds that they still found that the consent given did not oblige them to grant the application, since, in their opinion, it was similar and hence through the confusion it might cause, could result unfavorably to the public interest. The Supreme Court, in declaring that the Trade Mark Office was in error, stated that the authority of the office was legally limited to the protection of the interest of the owner of a trade mark already registered, and that when he, rather than oppose a new mark, gave his consent under such conditions that the public interest would not be harmed, the registrar of trade marks was obliged to grant the mark applied for. In general, the court stated, the interests of the manufacturer are far greater than those of the consumer, and hence it would be difficult to find a better guarantee of the authenticity of any product than the vigilance with which a manufacturer protects his own trade mark rights.

An interesting trade mark case was decided finally on July 6, 1938, by the Federal Court. It appears that a certain trade mark, Martin Fiero, expired on December 19, 1933. On the same date the firm Sociedad Auxiliar, Fabril, Agricola y Comercial (S.A.), made an application for this mark. Two day later the Sociedad Commercial Industrial y Financiera, Domingo Barthe (S. A.) requested the same mark. To the latter request, the first firm filed opposition and the case was eventually taken to the Courts. The decision was to the effect that the first firm had no right to file such opposition as its application for the mark, having been made while the mark was still in effect for the previous owner, could not be accepted. Consequently, the second application which was made two days after the mark expired was held valid and the mark was granted to that firm.

The court in its decision states that it cannot be concerned with moral reasons or with equity as precedents were numerous justifying the granting of the mark to the Barthe Company.

Labor, Employer and Employee, Marriage Clause. A law was recently passed by the Argentine Congress prohibiting discharge of employees by reason of marriage. This law, in the second paragraph of Article 2, placed all of the responsibility, in case of discharge, upon the employer, presuming that unless otherwise proved, matrimony should be considered as the cause. It was also provided that full indemnity would have to be paid to the employee thus discharged. The President of Argentina returned the law with his approval of all but this paragraph. After further debate in the Senate, the reservation of the President was accepted and the law was promulgated on October 7, 1938. A translation of the law, appearing in the Boletin Oficial of October 10, 1938 follows:

Article 1. Employers of business organizations holding public service concessions, and of civil or commercial organizations of whatever nature, are prohibited from dictating internal regulations or negotiating agreements or conventions which provide discharge of personnel by reason of marriage. Such acts shall be considered null and void.

Article 2. Without prejudice to administrative or judicial acts which correspond to the interested parties by common law or by special laws, the employers shall indemnify discharged employees for the damages sustained by their discharge because of marriage, whether or not there is a regulation, pact or agreement providing for such discharge. The discharge indemnity shall never be less than that corresponding to a year's salary.

(It is presumed, except when proved to the contrary, that the discharge is because of matrimony if it occurs within thirty days before or twelve months after marriage is entered into.)

(Note: The above paragraph was the part of the law vetoed by the President, which partial veto was accepted by the Senate.) Article 3. Violations of Article 1 of the present law will be punished by a fine of from one to ten thousand pesos for each infraction. In case of repetition, double the maximum fine shall be applied.

Article 4. The application of the fines referred to in this law. shall be effected in the Federal Capital, and national territories, by the procedure established in Law No. 11,570, and in the provinces by summary judgment which their respective laws may determine, and as regards the respective fines, they shall be paid into the Institute of the National Education Council or to the provincial councils.

Article 5. Domestic servants are not included under the dispositions of the present law.

When this approved bill was returned to Congress by the President with a partial veto the Senate, in which it originated, held a long discussion in which the principal point was one concerned with the effect of veto power. There was a difference of opinion as to whether a law could be constitutionally vetoed in part by the President and, with the approval of the house in which the bill originated, subsequently

be promulgated minus the section or sections vetoed. Apparently, the Executive Power is of the opinion that he has the right of partial veto, although Article 72 of the Constitution would seem to be clear, at least by implication, that a law vetoed in any part is vetoed in its entirety. On the other hand, there are precedents in which budget laws have been approved but with individual items, included by Congress, vetoed by the President.

This law presents another case of social legislation carrying heavy fines. However, with the veto of the paragraph placing all of the burden of proof on the employer, it is not believed to be exceedingly onerous..

Labor, Agricultural Laborers, Indemnity. Law No. 9688 of October 11, 1915, covering responsibility for labor accidents, says that it applies only to laborers in "... lumbering and agricultural industries ... when they are occupied in transportation or on stationary engines. In the July issue of Revista de Ciencias Economicas, Sr. Angel Raul Mazzocco publishes an article in which he states that this law really must apply tọ all agricultural laborers by reason of Law 12,232 of September 27, 1935. By this law, the Argentine Congress approved seven conventions voted by the International Labor Conference, of which Argentina is a member, by virtue of Law 11,722. This conference was held in Geneva in 1921. According to Sr. Mazzocco, Law 12,232 implicitly amended Article 1 of Law 9688, and therefore automatically extended the benefits to all laborers in agriculture. He holds that laws are amended or annulled by other laws, and that as Law 12,232 was subsequent to Law 9688, it would be fitting for Congress to clarify the situation by passing additional legislation to the effect that, by virtue of the ratification of the Geneva conference of 1921, the labor accident law should be extended to cover agricultural laborers.

Municipal Corporations, Liability for Torts. The Argentine Supreme Court has recently held the Province of Buenos Aires responsible for the negligence of the Public Registrar. The Western Railway, several years ago, purchased a piece of property in the Province of Buenos Aires. In fulfilling the legal requirements for the transfer of this property, they inquired of the Registrar and were assured that the property belonged to the grantor offering it to the railroad. Several years later, another party brought suit against the railroad for payment on the grounds that the property was hers. Having presented sufficient evidence to this effect, the court ordered the railroad to pay the purchase price of the property plus costs. This sum the railroad in turn claimed from the Province of Buenos Aires.

The court declared that inasmuch as the Province imposes the obligation upon purchasers of property to obtain the certificate of registration, and collects a special tax for that service, it is logical to presume that it be responsible for the guarantee which it makes. The decision further states that the Registrar does not act as a private person, but as an agent of a public corporation that has taken charge of a public function, and, as such, acts under a monopoly privilege. Consequently, his office must be responsible for the damages caused by his negligence.

La Nacion, in an editorial comment, refers to a similar instance which took place some time past in the City of Cordoba, and lauds the court for its decision, as well as the legislature, which, with the same end in view, held the Registrar responsible for his acts and placed his office directly under the Executive Power.

COSTA RICA

Admiralty, registration of Foreign Vessels.

According to the office of the American Minister, San Jose, the Costa Rican Congress approved a law on August 9, 1938, requiring that not less than seventy-five percent of the members of the crews of vessels of Costa Rican registration be nationals of Costa Rica. Special provision is made for fishing vessels which are allowed three years to effectuate fully the prescribed adjustment in their personnel. Operators of these fishing craft are required to employ twenty-five percent Costa Ricans the first year the law is in force, fifty percent the second year and seventy-five percent the third.

EGYPT

Business Regulation, Agriculture, Cotton Control.

The Official Journal of August 1, 1938, promulgates Law No. 59 which establishes regulatory control over the varieties of cotton to be cultivated in Egypt, the law becoming effective on the date of publication. According to the Office of the American Commercial Attache, Cairo, the cultivation of varieties of cotton, other than those specified in a schedule appended to the Act, is forbidden. Infractions of the law are punishable by both fines and imprisonment. A translated copy of the new Act is on file in the Division of Commercial Laws and may be obtained for loan on request.

As of October 1, 1938, the annual tax payable by owners of private motor cars and taxis has been increased from L. E. 5 to L.E. 6 and, according to the Office of the American Charge d'Affaires, it is expected that a bill on this subject will be introduced in Parliament. It is also reported that trucks and other commercial vehicles will continue to be assessed on a weight basis as provided in Law No. 44 of 1934.

LITHUANIA

Negotiable Instruments, Scope of Conventions.

The Lithuanian Government promulgated in Vyriausybes Zinios (Official Gazette) No. 619 of September 15, 1938, the official Lithuanian texts of the Check Law and the Draft Law, as provided for in the two corresponding Conventions concluded on April 9, 1938, between Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, to take effect October 1, 1938.

It has now been ascertained that the aforementioned laws are at present applicable to checks and drafts interchanged between the Nationals of the three signatory powers and within their respective territory. The three Governments have not as yet adhered to the several international Conventions concluded at Geneva on the basis