The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1867-05-05

The RIGHT OF THE PREss TO Pro
TEcTIoN.--The following ,case;iwhich
occurred recently in New York, will
be read With interest by the members
Of the press: $500 "7'.'aJe
f. 1tatseR et al. cs. Flanagan et;aL-,
The plaintiffs in this case, the pro.
tprietors of $he National Police Ga.
zete, have commenced suit against
the defendants for vending O paper
called Shes United Sates Police Gazette;
which they, .allege, to be an infringe
'mept Coff their rights. Pending the
tsdiB ItheyF took otlt, an ;injunction
restraining the defendants from sell
ing. the paper, and the case came up
on arnotion ITO DISSOLVE the injunc-
tion. pa
Judge Brady gave his decision in
tho ense yesterday, and, aluding to
tho rights of newspapers, said The
individualities of editorial life are as
rarely duplicated as those displayed
i'll other pursuits, and the intellectual
vigor distinguishing the character
and value of different prints, al
though equal in. power, will be es-
sentially different in thought in the
principles announced and advocated,
and in the reasoning by which the
same theories are advanced and
I,sought to be, established. A newspa-
per, in its commanding ielement, is
the result of mental labor, and should
be protected to the same extent, at
least in the use of'symbols, names
and marks, rs any other PROPERTY.
It may be that, as 1T changes from
day to day, or week to week, as the
ense may be, and is more or less re-
created by eacl. publication, becom-
ing asit were the 1nirror as we'll rs
the chronicle of the times, that it is
better entitled to such protection by
reason of its multiplied originality.
The Judge,refused to dissolve the
Injunction. .., <,<,/> .'-+a
CAN PARTIES RECOVER BACK Pho
PERTY SonD UNDER CONFEDERATE
CoNF4scATIoN ACrs.-An interesting
case is now pending before Judge
Barnard, of the Supreme Court, ,Ncw
York, to which T.. w. Allen and r.
3. Bridges are the parties. The nc
ton is brought to recover $40, 900
for the alleged wrongful conversion
of property in the State of North,
Carolina, in 1852. The answer of
the defendant states that, Mt the time
of the alleged taking of the property,
the State of North Carolina had al-
ready passed the secession ordinance,
and placed itself under the control
and authority of the so-ealled Con-
federate States Government; that
there was no other authority ut that
time exercised in the State, the au-
thority of the United States not being
enforced; that this property was con-
fiscated by the orders of the officers
acting under the delegated authority
of the State, and the defendant pur-
chased lit from, these officers. The
case came mp yesterday, on motion
| OF the plaintiff, to strike out the an
swer of the defendant rs irrelevant
Judge Barnard said the question in
yolved was one which required ex-
tended discussion and careful. consi-
Ederntion.X There had been no deci-
sion upon the question by any court
authorized to decide it; but coming
up before him as it did, ut Chambers,
he could not strike out anything
l'WiSlo icSu1 Y ducStlOuS were luV0lfcu.
He thought there was proper ground
fer demurrer to the answer; and if
the matter had come up before
him on demurser, he was inclined to
the opinion TINT he would give judg.
ment for plaintiff; but lie could not
do. so on the present motion, and
must deny it, with ten dollars costs,
with leave to the plaintiff to demuri
within twenty days. i
lt.L-h3 ~ I .i1-USTe--ee ! = = -
SUPFERINa IN ALABAMA. dea
spatch from Montgomery, says:
The destitution is yet great am ong
he'poor.h Between here and Atlanta
have seen people selling thier bed
ding for Corn. Gen. Swayne is
doing what he can; but more help is
needed. The civil superintendent of
bureau distribution, says the destitu-
tion in Alabama is rs great now as at
the, surrender-daily. rations are
served to 10000 of the most needy.