New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-10-14
JACK CADE IN COURT.

n, Edwin Forrest. The rscedian. applied 90 S,taI'
IA, 10 The Tilted States Circuit CoaIi I'd
pbis for an njuI cton to restrain n7 =, - Isck
"a ETedericks from performing the pay Q, 1ac a
Cd, a, The Arcb-.ireet Thes.er. The stidavi, OF
Nv Forrest sets forth ths; be bad purshased me Pl.y
~ % lack Cadev from The author. Robert L Conaa'
for which be had paid 81 200, and faat ne nsd ooP'
rieh.ed il in accordance wi'h la~'
ri, plladeJpliO BULLETIN of Oct. 10 says:
Tbi. roruire the Courtroom vas crowded with the
f,;snds Of Edwin Forrest and Mr.. Wbestey ANXIOUS
% hear the result Of the application Tor 81 nancnon
TO restrain Mr.. Whestey from representing me p'ay
of Jack Csde at the Arch street Iheser.
In answer 10 the bin Of Mr. Forrest, the Iespond-
EMS ssy that s true that Robert T. Conrsi d1 VINE
a play entitled Jack Cade, or the kentisa
the said composition did not, however, o1gnsny o.n.
that title bu. wss a. first called Ay'mere, or US
Rordman OF Kent" II VIA under said ,sst men'ionsa
title printed and published in the yearr ieo, ena
and the copyright thereto was secured accordng 70
law, and copy OF the titlepsge was duiy uep's'ea
in the Clerks Office for this Distrlct.
That Robert T. Conrad did not take any copyrg TI
for his aid composition unless that taken oy r.. H.
Butler a. Co. was secured on bis behalf sno suca .ao
respondent believes 10 have been tse CO...
Wkestey expressly denies that ConI.d ~ ~ ~
Assigned TO Mr. Forrest the said play ana al MS te
said Corrads right, title and interest ID the same.
That the copyright stll remains as IT was ong'nshy
tax en- out. in the name of Il. Butler a Co., ana
that DO sale assignment OF t. or OF TOE "9s
urder Il, was ever made to Mr.. Forrest. Thst be hiss
caused search 10 be made for thes record OF any sun
Assignment but more has been found Thst, notw,th-
stapoing the allegation Of the MT. ro.'
rest has claimed the ownership OF tne copysn
What the transaction between the compISinsn1
and the respondent, the responpent cannot say.
Mr. Wheatley further answers, that although COPY
right for the said composition was taken ou' 10 1871,
yet the work was not then recen,y m NJ Fnrrsst
ard as far back as 1885 by other actors, pameiy M.
Adams and Mr.. Ingerso That the rig6t AGO sl',e 70
said composition was vested IN r. e. ;ts author
Robert T. Conrsd Although such copynght c91!o
not give TO the author right 10 prevent the PUBIC
Representation OF bis tragedy upon any theser yes
matter of deicaey before putting me pee a
the stage Mr. Wheatey says be thought It due 70 the
aubor TO ask his permission for ts rooustion sna
,hi, was done by letter, of which the following Is
copy: AMI, Gan. ., 1857.
DEAR sIR Numerous parties friends and patron, 81 ny
e thtsier sent IN frequent reque. for o. the
Gf 'fgis n ss e 81 pro oucn
manner with Its sIss' Tonsbo.t the On
presume no one hss SC exclusive riaht 70 it sh. Be most
hP' 10 % .s ana pes IS the
iaons will permit it, provided no ooJseIhs on your p u
in he WY "a. Very 'e'pee%s'sS y%SSTaiEArLEY.
To which letter Judge Conrad addressed rep'y, ir
which he states that the play was free to all The World
Mr.. Wheatley then Gays that having thus consulted
the author of the pay and the real owner of the copy
rig hit thereto and being informed upon reliable author
ity that the play in question had at various mes been
perform ed in different sections OF this country aud
Er gland by other iregedisos, he, with the unquss I'D
license tbus accorded to him proceeded with his pre-
parations fer producing the play from the printed copy
published by Butler Co., in manner commensu.
rate with its merits. That the play was announced
for number of days before Saturday the 10Th Of De-
tober as being in active preparation. Tha. the play
has not be en- the exclusive property OF NJ Fprest,
but baa at different times and at different places been
nerformed by Messrs Neafe, Leonard. Lsngdon, Da-
yenport McDorough. Adams and IDgersoll.
The affidavit of Mr.. L. l.. Davenport was read
stating that be had performed the character of Jack
Cade rumoer of nights successfully in the city OF
London.
Mr. Doughety. for Mr.. Forrest remarked that they
were in the predcsment in which The respondent had
been placed on Saturday-not having had an opportu
nifty Of seeing the respondents answer and not having
had near so much time the respop dent had to read
complanants bill. He would, therefore, Ike q con.
tr for the purpose of examining the answer OF
Mr. Wbeatey: ihst sill the wrong that could be done
TO Mr.. Forrest dope by the representation OF Jack
Csde On Saturday night.
Mr. Gillou representing Mr.. Wheatley, replied that
his client desri TO act in all respects as good Cit
zen had withdrawn the pley for this evening, antci-
psiirg the worst issue Of the case and wishing to give
no 0ffense.
He bad no objections 10 continuance, provided the
play be permitf 10 be performed in the mean time at
the pleasure of Mr.. Wheatley.
Judge Grer eaid that there could be nothing TO pre-
vent Mr.. Wheatley from presenting the play until 40
iour elton be granted by the Court
The case then at the sugg stion of the Judges,
continued with the privilege Of again presenting 1t,
upon sufficient notice to the respondent.