The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-07-01 00:00:00

NOVEL CLAIM AGAINST A NEWS.

PAPER.

Od Tuesday a case, " Walters «. the Proprietors of the
Echo," which was opened last week, was resumed before
Mr. cJrivolesioner Kerr, at the City of Lomion County
Court. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages
for an article which he bad sent to the Kato but which, not
beteg accepted by the editor, was destroyed. On the last
occasion Mr. Waiter asked for proof that the 118. was
destroyed at the time when he applied for the MS., and the
Judge consequently allowed the adjournment.
Mr. Arthur Arnold was called, and examined by the
plaintiff, lie said he was the editor of the Echo, and
remembered the MS. to which the plaintiff referred.
He destroyed it immediately he had glanced through
it. That was within half an hour of the time he
received it. Very likely he should be more accurate
if he raid within ten minutes. This was his habit with
regard to rejec;ed conmunications. A -tt accom-
panied the MS. He did not read the erf.Jo through,
as in the opening paragraph it purpwrt,i t, be a con.
tinuation of a previous article on the cob tof "Legal
It. f Truation." That subject he (NI.. Arnoldj had
entrusted to a rueuiber of hi, own staff, and it would
boy, been unfair to that genthrutin if La had accepted
an article from another person.
The Judge said he understood that tire only point
now to be raised was, whether the MS wroi inexistence
at the time the plaintiff applied for it. If it had been,
the plaintiff was clearly entitled to it, 1,1,t Mr. Atiaold
ha I now proved that it had been del trc
Mr. Waiter contended that he had aoi p-rty in the
rami of the paper containing his MS., ooi tam, he had
a right to an action of te,ver to recover tbel‘...
The Judge int4ato4 that it would Le a vary mail

amount. It would take • very large MS. to make a far-
thing for waate paper. As he had already Bltid several
times, the fact of a writer sending an article to an edi-
tor implied that he was to have control over it. A
writer was quite capable of making and keeping • copy
of his article, but it was not to he expected that an
editor could pigeomhole and docket every menu-
script he received, for the purpose of returning it if it
should be asked for. A dozen editors would not be
sulticint for a daily pape-r if that was to he done.
Mr. Walter entirely objected to that ruling, and con-
t-nded that whatever had occurred, he hod a property
in the Mi. he sent.
The Judge mad he had virtually decided the case on
the previous day when he stated that a a ine merchant
or a tailor had it. business to send him their goods
without order, and insist on his vending them back.
TJoon the question of property in magazine articles
being raised,
The Judge said there was a great dfference between
a daily pap, and monthly magez.me. In the case of
Good Words, which was, he believed, a monthly pub-
lication, he had decided a case in which a la ly hed
brought an action against the proprietors, for a MS.
which waa lost in transmission to the editor. He had
I decided for the defendante on the ground that there
had been no missa no/hoe:trim
. - .

Mr. Walter said, that after the Judge's expression
of opinion, it would be useless to say more ; but he
exc-pted to the ruling, and gave notice that he should
aprhe al.Judge said there was no appeal, but Mr. Walter
thought otherwise, and quoted the statute. In that
argument, however, he was stopped, the judge remark-
ing that there was no occasion to argue it. lie re-
mained of opinion that the control in such a case as
this remained with the editor, and he must find for the
defendauts. . . . . . .

Mr. Walter complained that the decision overruled
the law for the ben,tit of proprlrt.irs of daily papers.
The Judge: If an editor applied a MS. to his own
profit, or to wrong user., he would be liable to penal.
ties. . _ .

The summons was then dismissed, and costs allowc d
to the defendants.