Monongalia mirror. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1855, 1855-04-07
THE INJUNCTION CASE.

II is known, 10 many Of our readers thai
some time ago private letters passed between
Rev. James Woolsey, Of New York, Finan.
cial Secretary of,he Am, & For. Bible Socic-
ty and the Rev. VIM Crowell, Of St. Louis,
Editor Of the Western Watchman. To their
surprise, they were informed By 0. B. Judd,
that those letters were in his possession, and
soon would be given to the public in the col
umns Of the New York Chronicle. Regard.
ing this as gross Interference with private
matters, Mr.. Woolsey placed an injunction
upon his designs, and the question Of rights,
in such case, has just been tested by for.
NAL suit inn New York. We find the follow.
ing report Of the trial in one of the New
York Dailles = N.'t
"The defendants in this suit are the pub
fishers and editors Of religious newspaper
published in this city. and supported by the
Baptist denomination. There has been Of
late years something Of a split in that demon;
nation in reference to the question cftho nfsr
rersion cfhc English Scriptures, and a good
deal Of controversial writing growing gu, Of
this has appeared in the. columns Of the IL
valjournals. Many articles were published
on this subject, some ofthem anonymously.
Among the latter were some written by the
plaintiff. The evidence fixing their author
ship on him happened to fall into the hands
Of the defendants, in the shape ofprivate let
ters to third party. These letters they.
threatened to publish, so as to prove him to
be The real author Of the Objectionable anon
ymous communications. The plaintiff ap-
piled TO the Court FOR an injunction to restrain
the defendants from publishing these letters
on the ground that they were his property
that he had the same right 10 them that au.
tl,ors had 10 their productions, and That he
might be prejudiced by their publication.-
The defendants contended that the letters
made no pretensions to literary composition
that. plaintiff therefore had no legal pow
erty in them, and tina, they had rgh, to
publish them in vipdication Of the truth
Judge Ducr decided the case, reviewing al
length the facts and The lsw. He said that
was argued, the Judges had dis
covered that the last patent law Of Congress
.--rassed 10 1881, andwhich is the consolida-s
ton ofaIl the prior laws relative to copytish,
contains an express provision that the au-
thor Of every unpublished manuscript what
ever, which is about to be published with
out his consent. or which he has reason to
believe will be published withou. his consent
has righ, to apply to the Courts Of the
United States 10 restrain such publication BY
Injunction, and that oh such application and
proof it is the duty oflhe Court TO giant such
injunction. The question then atnse whe'h-
Ell that jurisdiction had been aterwardeves-
ted in The State Cour,s, and the Court hasinE
heard argumen, thereon, decided tha. II had
the rieh, to gran. snitjune,.on'
The mex, question was, whether on the
face cfhe matter and according to the es,ab-
lished doctrines of equity, the plaintiff is Ell.
titled to the relief he seeks, and whether
a court of equity has power to restrain BY in.
Junction the publication Of private le,ters, IN
Ill cases where it is alleged the publication
is abputto be made without the consent and
contrary to the wishes Of the writer. The
Court believed that il had that power, as
mischief would certainly result to The com
mtni.t from tho unrcs,rained and frequent
publication Of private end confidential let.
,crs. The Judge referred, in support Of his
opinion, to the opinion Of Lord Ehlon in the
case Of Southey against alt English publisher
and 10 other cases in which j. was decided
,ha, the writer Of private letter has in all
cases, without reference IL It's character or
contents, an unlimited right TO control its
publication. He disseh,ed from tho decs-
ion Of Chancellor Walworth in the case Of
which decision,ii could not he de.
MED was an express authority in favor Of the
defendant.
The writer Of a private letter tetains in i,
a join. property with the receiver but in
tls case The possession Of the letter has not
been a.,aiiied by the defendants ds being the
persons or person TO whoti they were adj.
dressed. In additioti 10 that, 1t is evident
that their publication is no, necessary for
any vindicalion Of The defendants but that i,
is only intended 10 reiiec, on the character
aud conduct Of tile plaintiff. The Court,
therefore, decided tha, the injunction to re-
strain the publication must be gtanted.'
Give Us the Irish yet. AT the Cork
assizs. u learned gentendn, dissatisfied
at his success with a witness, complain
ed to the court. Paddycsclsiined:
Ny lord, [ am nc, lawyer, and lie
wants to puzzle NC. lgsi 1
ouasel.-Come now. doyeu swear
thst you're NJ lawyer
TY,tacss.-Faith an I do; an'! you
tan swear the sumo about yourself; Pm