The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-11-10
LEGAL IWTELLIGENCE.

UNITED STATES CIROyIT CoURT-Jqdge Cas-,
% msrnng qqe 10 Of s
men! OF the case OF sinn vs. Drew in which The Ian.
VIE r
members Of MRS. Drew's company sat beside Il. S,
Miller, Esq, repI esenIing he iesponoent . -
WHICH Wss SE s Up By ff Ne m ef
1t. remarked lhas stated that original drama
was never printed in this e0n1sT but moi that
he thought the presumption was that 1t had been
Tne complainant aimed to be the proprietor Of the
literal adaptation OF the drama put ra anil tae
out he Id not know what he could restrain Al AL
sna sa.' SSuS p @ %
anything that was new, that much could be protected
he thought necessary that he should first see
u Mr.. airst Produced Mr Sims manuscript, saying
that would admit II 10 De the ogna, dra%a, wltn
witch he wOnld point out
Judge asS that he asa saw hn In IN
York; and second, that there was an omission 70
e aws SsI nos S m was
whet, er the original drama had ever been printed
draw S x. MI H,' 1es9 and s%s
Which he said was in substance deponent
ysS ss y in hsS e he Would hss
mannsorps amt Mf. Sims additions. il the prolesas
was ntredgoeq the character s Of FarMar bKsSy
in the after the prologue Two years slapssd nad
of oG %hss Ses.me 10 Sim order 70 supply
this dlfficslty, explained TO the audience In
sinai I Ruth Kirby was Tepressnted a FerSleigh
sress upon Ss Ts
upsatsiactory vacancy In ths minds Of the audience
tation. humber o. other instances % we're Pein.ed
sa o r @
concerned Mr. sina undoubtedly had their copyright
sSu ss 70 be- eG nsd ne og
here Than what Inevitable that The play at both
events. these adaptatious proydsd some allegation
was made that they were expected to be used by
MT Hirst here cited the case Of Kean vs.. wheatley.
ground upan which to restrain the pro 1ucton OF the
Mr. Hirst urged upon the Court that his client had
pun chased this man1ScrPt from IL hohaon gsntie man
pro, srly before the subtle lad taken Gus his copy
Tsn nsted STATES IN The rSSt s'e " the
| The Judge s'ill answered that he play was com
single individuai he did not see why tnat adiv
shSnd not have the Ssne: Ell Of his 10 own nyepOps
Psy s s u In Ss S
in thst there was an ailegstI9n of fraud Nobody
the orignsi play but they did mot wish that Here,
Rss anything @ose than the original
| would be uted by the respondents.
right tbe exclusive right 60 the title OF the play,
Il was stated that there ill;feelIng whatever
the case court TO have The gal question settled
refSse 10 grant tSa Injunction He added hat when.
ever dramatic author took out acopy1ignt of mere
adap ations, he should In pro manner ndlcate
TO The public what those adaptations were, as mat
| ter of caution:
| COURT OF QUARTER sESSIONS-Judge Peirce.
Prison cases were before o. o Court this morning.
| man named James Finnegan WAS convicted CT
| the larceny of horse baukeJ from car-driver.
| George and William Zimmerman. tive lads, entered
a pies of guilty 10 the charge OF steAlisg various
| su ms Of money from the drawer or t0oAccon st
with whom they were employed, amounting In the
| aggregate 10 $l27 The money was taken in small
| sums and at different times
Frank B. Wopdery was acquitted OF the charge OF
ured upon pension certificates,
John Bryson charged with keeping teroclous
and furious dog lady testified that the animal had
sprung At her. and was only prevented from bling
that the dog would requenty run at wagons and rag
picxsTs , Jnry yy0nIar o9I No ,1,a1s stroua-uack.v
Beattie a Hay Alexander King An action 70 re-
cover commissions for the sale OF liquor Before
ported. Verdict for the defendant.
Elizabeth SPARKS vs.. Adelaide Il. Haskins, Execu'
board furnished 70 minor On trial