The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-03-19

ceptiops and We cannot look into the afhdsvt.
In that case an exempiincaton OF an affidavit made
Court Of Probate produced at the argun which
IL waa claimed, was sufficient TO confer jurisdiction to
the trial the ground that II then shown that
jurisdiction 10 rake 1t had been acquired. But rs the
cause was before the court bill Of exceptions, and
not on case, the court refused to look at the exemph
ed copy, and ordered trial In Dresser Brooks,
Barb 429 this distI ction does not appear to have
been adverted to- and reference h made to Hart
Coltrain The only decisions cited are, II wend 12e.
10 i'd 62i, and ID $685. in these the defeated
party moved for new trial on case II may perhaps
be said Of Dresser Brooks that although the report
oft shows that exceptions taken AT the rial yet
Goes not state that that before the c,ur
bill OF exceptions If before the court case which
reserved no right that it should be turned into
bill Of exceptions, the decision made in II does On
hict with that made in Hart Coltrain We have
been referred 70 no case in which Lgument was
ordered to allow such proof be given after the verdict
had been set aside and new trial granted Nor have
We beer referred to In which defective proof
allowed to he supplied on the argument OF motion
Tor trial. whe n such proof TO be consi-
dered by the only II the fact to be proved was to
be established by the testimony Of witnesses
OF by any evidence which in ts nature con.rovert
competent and not inexpedent for the court after
yersing a judgment upon exception taken at the
trial and after both parties had been heard upon II,
at the general term To vacate tho judgment Of reversal
and allow evidence be supplied by proofs TO
be given at the general term provided the proofs related
to point upon which evidence TO be given to the
Court only and then rehear the appeal and dispose of
it as If such proof had been produced at tho trial
The statute requires satisfactory proof TO be given
at the trial and unless it is there given the party
taking such deposition has right ~ read IL At all To
grant this application would be equivalent 10 holding
that, although there con'essedy, evidence given
at the trial of the absence of the witness from the State,
yet the Court on appeal, and on reviewing excep-
tion taken 10 such admission Of deposition, might
without any improprety allow witnesses to be exa-
mined at the general term, TO prove that In point OF
fact the persons Who had been examined de bene se
had continued absent from the State that his atten
dance could not be compelled by the ordinary process OF
law Whether appeal at the general term 4 from
order denying a motion made for n new trial a
case from decision Of question of law upon bill OF
exceptions, OF opinion that il would be improper
and highly xpedent to so extend and Apply the ruls
1t would be ssary TO do, to sustain this motion
The motion is therefore denied, with costs.
IMPORTANT TO PUBLISHERS AND NEWSPAPER PRO.
PRIETORs-PRoPKRrY IN PRIVATE LETTERS.
James Woolsey against Orrin y. Wood and others
The defendants in this suit the publishers and sd
tors of religious newspaper published in this city and
supported by the Baptist denomination. There been
of Iate'years something of split in hat denomination
in reference to the printing OF the american Baptist
Union and good deal OF controversial writing growing
out Of this has appeared in the columns Of the rival
journals. Many articles published this subject
written by the plaintiff. The evidence fixing their
authorship him happened to fall into the hands of
third party. These letters they threatened to
publish, ~ 20 prove him to be the real
The plaintiff app cd TO the Court for ton TO
restrain the defendants from publishing these letters
the ground that they were his property that he had the
came right TO them that authors had TO their produc
tons, and that he might be preudiced BY their pubica
ton The defendants contendec that the letters made
preteDsions to literary composition, that the plaintiff
therefore had no legal property in then and that they
had right TO publish them in vndication Of the truth
Judge Duer decided the case reviewing at length the
facts and the law He aid that after the case was nr.
gued the Judges bad discovered that the last psten,
OF Congresspassed in 1881 and which Ia the consoda
on OF all the prior laws relative to copyrshtcontains
nm he thorp pF n.
lshed manuscript whatever which is about 10 be pub.
hshed without his consent, wh:h he has to
believe will be published without his consent has right
to apply to the Courts Of the United states to restrain
ch publication by injunction and that such app
cation and proof tue duty of the Court grant such
injunction. The question then arose whether that
jurisdiction had been afterwards vested the State
Courts, and the Court having heard argument thereon
decided that It had the right TO grant an injunction
Tie next question whether the face OF the
matter and according TO the established doctrines of
equity the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he seeks and
whether court Of equity has power 10 restrain by
INDUCTION the bhcation OF private letters in all cases
where IL is alleged the publication IN about to be made
without the consent and contrary TO the wishes Of he
writer. The Court believed that IL had that power,
mischief would certainly result to the community from
the unrestraiDed and frequent publication Of private
and confidential letters The Judge refe In support
OF his opinion TO the opinion of Lord Edon in the
OF sou'hey against an English publisher, aud to other
cases in which II decided that the writer OF pri
yats litter has in all cases. without reference TO Its
character contents unlimited right to control ts
publication He d,ssehted from the decision Of Chan
ceDor Waworth in the case Of Mckenzie, which de.
cision II could not be denied express authority
favor OF the defendant.
The writer OF private letter retains in II Joint pro
perty with the receiver bu; In this the possession
OF the letters has not been attained by the defendant
being the psrtoDs person IN whom they address
ed In addition to that, 1t is evident that their publca
ton s not necessary for vnicaton OF the the de-
fendapts but that only ntenced 10 reflect the
character and conduct Of tho plaintiff The Court
therefore decided that the injunction 70 restrain their
publication must be granted