New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-10-07

the exrerse OF sencpg them end pAn.y 10 have
hfen Intentionally omitted as TO leave ociousl WIN
The pubj st ers to aspd le cot does uot APPEAR 10
he We beer ar of the py Rbtiaw. as .iuf 's
70 looe, wh.re 10. copyrights hsV- b secQ ed Tua
Cour. does consider that part OF rs copyright les
A question may however rriie end snihofs mad heIIsf
send iheu. unoer inc law OF 1886
IA 10 music, has bsen daiermiued 6y ina vafa1i 10
cl,on; In e-cl that he mere srrangs and s5aioa
OF lece Ia ground for copyright tbs Original "a
piece OF music requires Peuus, bn'G mere netna"c "a
mu,ic make adaoslou To be sadea 10 cooYfRh1
The musical composition must 9e enthusiastically leF'"
original work. .hoa,r
lhsi from ofcoinp enant IN may 9afhfos@
Its clsued that The fact q king the N4n7 Ire . ~
lee; for njnDcion The claim Is undet ie ~ tts,
AID The question Of lite Alo ne doss Dol oflng III ;
Ia H. GA that point the Hiser s'socs 100 J
beloI 20 10 local authorities Should taefe oo soo
-i,ia IN nroi-cioT az 10 be copyright this Court ~ooa
tttn Zeal called ufon, probably TO protect ss' a7 ' -
y heber liz publication of complainant IS such ss ~
lite bin 10 copyTi 81 and tts Other gu lo',tgs uS
e Jsfio JUN and question as % i9s VIC :? snS
nu.t $50 ,bde rs resu-Aoiion for lnloncho ced9di
'Dc W. av-Re3ence OF suitoIs- Notion or In
, az sr3 i;pt-Tbe pladl IL ouuoel on 500
en- 1916 adostins spi's a. 10 paints on n an
nfSces Of 10, Tbs b sisee Iaat CON hln'ot
.1,iar NJ ror oecicul hnd toe ocIed1 R1l clZsn OF
NswJerssv aud o5ecli0nt s IsEen 10 Jufa1icaon The
nhrti Is well ken tho sn mns be h-I~een ci!':
~ iha 9ste fp uhich suit IL brought and TIE cizsn Of
spo besec,li denied and bllidlsrsset,
HItn W Spr9gul and ot{era-Bl Tor injunction 10
paloli-Fbe Couf t-ka tie pateat Gr4D.d to Aie1 In
la44 ls for improvement RE that OF 1881 aud the OBJ
lection that Commissioner had right 20 sccsp' ms
SITerder tnd eisiuo III. amended patent is rot W9ll
forD6sd cs.e tury aud de- ;lsioa sufDs n1e1
Bef5rs Ju6 pc Nos,n-,yoha }sard.Lyvs LeO TaDpqn.
Mr. II Is proprietor Of tho lofofmaioo Office So to me
sag a. Of 9u"ns' 99 Tne .ss1 Of az sas sG3e
Up bic sore &c. Demurrer was puI Ia. Argument wha
heard, trd dechion reserved
FIRST DISTRICT COURT Before Jadge Gtsen.
-raveIu Keepers LieOi Ny-Baboock vs. Gunter-Tne
rls III room IT dzIHa house IN Fu !ol.8t
tnovyrnS Ourlsi's Ho.el Wh!e tic thus occgpied the
room trunk we1 eitef lost Or i.c'en The EVIDENCE
o5gerh tbel neaE plscss re they plesss The
ua milf c0lt ntf IT. the Defendants iabe as Inn Keeper
Tor the value OF tie lfDyk ard ccntents
Yhe Jr3ge luied paL til Cd too ground 1a cesln-
not IN iEnEeeper end therefore not liable for
tunht orer Idle. los
Eds ardfThe argument The application by he Ro'
man Catholic A'yum Society of Brooklyn, Tor mandsnus
sgsiDsl tho Board of Education Of that city to compel me
Iiitr 10 paw ihe Society portion OF the rGoic school
money, referred yesterday TTs ccncuteo so u5sloh
es-r9ed The points 10 he Of The B'ookyn Orphan
Eocety argued es week the sGtne &c 20 the co1st'
ulious purs do comprehend thst ga - eecisrl&n
points the f. Q beBR Protestant insLn!lon, ard
psrtrnar c ed rot adopted 10 The oil Tt main feat
deense In regard 10 letter, ss u the Scoo Law
vap hs il1sd not reported las tho Catholic Or
hsn Society nsy tad rOt,) be- embraced o. calculated
upon IN hoappotopn en Decision in both ciaeS eserYed
SUPREME CoURr-Spec5al Tern D session b.
judge LowsrdF-G iory dim Putnam W. Thee g Psta in
-MooD by MI F.. or the custody Of little boy child OF
The paeg throw being ID The c0a0dg OF Tue huthef ana
sui or divorce pending brought by Era Putaan sgGiust
Mr Ier alleged iLhdelity The Cou 10 he &c marks
plauaou but the pIoSent Ape nce is tas ii was a.
least mpu6en such so Is opposed 10 The general idsa
OF ooc mOrels The chd 10 well OF where II Is and tae
Court Sc nc good for It's removal Ofderad that
The child In 10 the custody OF the ps l'lf ha moher)
ill the further order OF the Court AMI bat The cnd % not
sh en- cut of The jurisdiction Of this Court
Sayaa TessisY vs. John Ttss,er-Mouon IL allowance
denied
Jeanne Adete Deoaismes yC Jean F, DeV1ismes motion
that the pArta Of lhs marked ana no ArcE 81
cut as rreAven-deued Che moh0E Is nso d7nied eH 20
poTtoD or the ma Eed Ii other respects mo-
uop granted. hut vi bout costa
Mutual Security H.urdnce CO1Eany Va Dlatdntq j
Drtmfroad 81 ctlon for INJUNCTION doued With 3O coats
Harfts H,,on Nathan Young ard others - Motion to
dissol.e II junction denied.
North FIe Insurance Company va Nathan p
Ftr,is and others Sane
Heyacs " Dt0sy John D Soes Motion that ihe
defendant be perued 10 aao defend IA GRAINED.
The Judgment 10 .tand IA security
IjsHj Il b-0fhersonvE Hap II BroDH and others-Aster
aen beck 20 eugbe defendant FnIconer complee his
testimony ubels dtrndarle Buuows and vs couer con
scot each pay bic sud ouehattha costs ofIhe
referee; Ihsi lhey do consent The costs Of
lainf bepId o. Tue surplus fandi aud 'he report OF
lbe Ieetea be confirmed
in 0e mate, Of Robert Ieggen tqnatie Referred to
r. RUR proof TO The usterlal evermenis
OF The petition which denied nv The committees and par
ticulsry whether board sad lodging we're utnlshed and
,oryceS eude,ed, spd whist reeaGDaby worth and what
,pTe.eul the petitioners sod the re-
fsrees 10 relation 20 such hoard and service