New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-10-10
CIVIL COURTS.
SUPERIOR coURT-rmAt Trnn-ocr. o.-BesOre Justic

SUPERIOR COURT-TEIAt TEnM-ocr s-BefOre Justice
MORE OF OUR AMERICAN CoUsIE-THB RIGHTS OF
LIcENsES-vBRDICT DIRECTED FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Laura Keene agt. John c. Clarke.
This case was resumed yesterday, Mr.. Jefferson
being recalled by the plaintiff and tesng that the chief value
of play like the American Cousin its adapabty to the
stage araceness the public. 1t wond BE- move yau'
able 10 person owning exclusively The terms on Whieh
vary with the contract This play is considered successful at
Che Olympic he recognized manuscript shown MN as ine
manuscript OF the American Cousin read by him IN 1905 ne
recognized by the handwriting by pencil marks ana om
seeing il every day at rehearsal ..A +; h,
ness and dialogue which made by and communicated
BY 70 Mr. Clarke that are not IN this manuscript
WIN Stuart the Manager Of the Winter Garden produced an
abstract of his books by which appeared that our Amer
Cousip nd in September 1865, Mr.
Clarke playing Asa TenchaTd and sharing IN the profits MS
share being = 100 % o. hSe boSaes OF M "a bo which
ITO Mr. Jamcs-I am manager and lessee; Mr. Clarke was
Employed by an actor and this share was re-
eciycd BY him as salary put up TINS s. play Tor act
up play he certainly had control of manager
knew the sv had been played the country and that Mr.
Clarke had paid both parties Ginning both Mr. Ssbee and
Miss Kecne; knew that by common report received
tice from Miss Keene till after the play had been ProdnGed
Messr James Dunphy my counsel do not remember
receiving this letter think received notice on the frst
letter answered the day it came TO u.s. MIR stuart is
s & ny FIRST produced T. ON niS Ss SSH on the I'd
To the Cour-lt was not part OF the agreement tast MT
q certain set Of plays in his repertoire.
To Mr. Booth-hs Of the plays he had been play
Mr. Booth thea offered in evidence the proceedings in the
Philadelphia establish Miss Keenes title to esop Mr.
Clarke from denying her right to ii.
Mr. James objected to it the ground that the present
ilon was at law while the decision in that
equitable one and that the $500 under
paid full license the defendant to play it without
restriction limitations and further that the play had since
been abandoned BY them to the public
set nm ms IN
course did not exclude testimony as to subsequent dedceon
$500 was paid license perform this play merely at Clarke
& wheadey's Theater at Philadelphia
The plaintiff then rested
C. W Tayeurc was called for the defense and testified that
he had been theatrical t for IS years and knew the play
s sp sSs se Psy 70 1 Ps SH
The Court Mr. JemesDo mean to argue that 4 Miss
property has been taken by other parties unsthab
that license to the defendant to act 1t also without her
MI James-Yes il she has once acted public Ipopose
TO show that Miss Keene has published this play ana dedicated
1t TO the public
The Court-Howi
Mr.. James-Partly by public representation IL.
The Court grant It would be defense If these parties
reproduced from their memory OF what they had seen IN @
theater acted there But II this pretend TO nave pen
the Sbce any manuscript then this decision IN fhiaapna
Nj lanes aSSued that the Philadelphia decision the
ground equitable right gained through license Ihat
this mere license could BE- the foundation OF an action at
law and that il it did it was exhausted long ago
The Court consented to hear the evidence
Mr. Tayleure testified having known Of It's being played at
Andrews was recalled and testified when he the
play acted Providence they did from Several OF
them who had and taken part in the play sat down and
made up At tords theater they played iio MT OrAe
manuscript
To Mr. BOOTH II in print had permission
Miss Keene make the manuscript The performance
ut Providence before ever played il with Miss Keene
william Wheatley Of Nibos testified that he pad 500 10
Miss Keene he did remember what passed the time Of
it paid under the decree the play had since
been frequently played in theater nth which Miss kecne had
no connection Mr. Clarke and witness In partnership
when he paid the money. 49,
keene either before after the decree did not consider 1t
necessary. 80.
To Mr. James-I play from this manuscript this Is
skeleton played from the original London manuscript
with London in it, and that manuscript was obtained
from Mrs. Silsbee.
This closed the testimony
COur-I do not what is TO to the jury here Mr.
james
Mr. James-Nor do l. 1t is question for the Court and
shall Honor dismiss the complaint nearly the
grounds those have urged and also OR tho ground
that appears that Mr. Clarke did not produce the play but
Mr. Clarke having control and his share OF the
profits was merely by of salary.
Court shall override in that but will hear
wish. in relation 10 the amount of damages
Mr. James-That is thing to which should like to call
be fixed The impossbiy Of fixing the damages in
such has been held repeatedly ground for granting an
Injunction. There are here no data whatever
The COu-I think the proper OF damages is the
amount Mr. Clarke obtained by IT, What he has gained IN my
view wrongfuy he should TO the plaintiff shall d
verdict for the plaintiff for that amount s. 6S o. but
the questions and interesting and may he mistaken
in views will direct subject to exceptions TO be heard
by the General Term in the first instance.
YerdiG entered accordingly.