J.Q.B

(N. S.) 593; Loven v. People, 158 111. 159, 42 N. E. 82; so also Simmons Hardware Co. v. Waibel, 1 S. D. 492, 47 N. W. 814, 11 L. R. A. 267, 36 Am. St. Rep. 755. A servant who has copied his employer’s list of customers, to use it in soliciting their custom after leaving his employ, was enjoined, and the list was ordered to be destroyed; 2 Q. B. 315. One who has obtained from an employer of another patterns of pumps was enjoined from using or disposing of them; Tabor v. Hoffman, 41 Hun (N. Y.) 5. Where a corporation director, who knew a secret process of his company, became president of another company and, with the aid of discharged employees of his former company, installed the secret process for such other company, the director, the company and. the discharged employees were all enjoined; Yulcan D. Co. v. Can Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 387, 67 Atl. 339, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102, with a full note. A secret process may be the subject of confidential communication and of sale or license to use with restriction as to territory and prices; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. J. D. Parks & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L, Ed. 502, citing Fowle v. Park, 131 U. S. 88, 9 Sup. Ct. 658, 33 L. Ed. 67. An agreement in a sale of a secret process for manufacturing a drug, which restricts the vendor from using or divulging it to others, or selling the article, is a reasonable restnV tion, it being necessary for the vendee’s protection, and the article not being of prime necessity for the public; Mallinckrodt O. Works v. Nemnich, 169 Mo. 3S8, 69 S. W. 355. So of a covenant of the vendor not to divulge it to any one else for five years; Tode v. Gross, 127 N. Y. 480, 28 N. E. 469, 13 L. R. A. 652, 24 Am. St Rep. 475; and of a covenant not to use it or disclose it to others or to sell the article made under it; L. R. 9 Eq. 345; Vickery v. Welch, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 526. Assumpsit will lie against one who con- 1 tracted not to take advantage of the communication of a trade secret, and then obtained secrets at the trial may be privately heard, see In Camera. In Taylor Iron Co. v. Nichols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 Atl. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. Rep. 753, a case was heard in camera and the evidence was then sealed. A disclosure of a secret necessarily made to the court at a trial does not preclude an injunction; Stone v. Goss, 65 N. J. Eq. 756, 55 Atl. 736, 63 L. R. A. 344, 104 Am. St. Rep. 794. See [1913] 2 Ch. 239. The manufacturer of proprietary medicines under secret process cannot contract with dealers in such medicines, wholesale and retail, to control prices and fix the prices which consumers shall pay; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. J. D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 31 Sup. Ct. 376, 55 L. Ed. 502. See Restraint of Trade. A witness may refuse to give testimony or produce documents which would disclose trade secrets and where the evidence is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible; Crocker- Wheeler Co. v. Bullock, 134 Fed. 241. A person conducting a private enquiry business does not impliedly warrant to his client that his servants will not disclose their secrets after leaving his employ; and queere as to disclosures made while in his employ; Easton v. Hitchcock [1912] 1 K. B. 535. See Vulcan Detinning Co. 7. American Can Co., 73 N. J. Eq. 387, 67 Atl. 339, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 102; Stevens & Co. v. Stiles, 29 R. I. 399, 71 Atl. S02, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 17 Ann. Cas. 140.