The New York herald., 1875-09-14
The Rose Michel Drama Withdrawn
from the Court Stage
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION GRANTED.
That Eighty Day Circum-
orbic Trip.
Still Lingering in the Courts-No De-
cision Arrived At
THE LATE JUDGE.WOoDRUFF.

On the 25th OF August last Judge Freedman, OF the
Superior Court, motion Of Judge Dittenhoefer,
granted temporary injunction against Augustn DAILY,
OF the Fifth Avenue Theatre forbiddng him from pro-
ducing at his theatre the play known "Rose
Michel" any translation or adaptation thereof or
from in anywse using the manuscript of the play, and
also forbdding Simmonds & Wall dramatic agents,
from dsposng OF or exercising any ownership over the
drama, the play being a French play and sold and as
signed, alleged by him, TO the parties applying for
The injunction. The motion TO make the injunction
permanent argued before Judge Curtis, Of the SUI
perior Court by Judge Dittenhoefer and Charles W.
Brooke and in opposition, by William d. Booth, W.
F. Smith and Thomas W. Clarke, Of Boston, the argu-
ment continuing through three days. Judge Curtis
yesterday decided continue the injunction and gives
his reasons therefor in the following opinon:-
THE. OPINION
The play written in French by Ernest Blum.
The plaintiffs alege that it has never been published
and that the author sold the original manuscripts
thereof in the French and English languages to one
Miches who, the llth of March, 1878 sold the
10 the plaintiffs, for the United States, except New
England This statement Of the plaintiffs is confirmed
by aidavts of Michels and the author The defendants
claim that carly February, 1875, l.. NJ. Baylis
purchased the English translation of the play from
Miches in Paris, and that Baylis employed one Wall
20 sell the same for the United States and that lie came
10 New York and sold it to the defendant Daily All
parties concede that the title originally in Michcls
The plaintiffs produce bill OF sale of the manu-
scripts from Miches the plaintiff, dated March IL,
1875. and acknowledged April s. 1875 The defendants
produce the affidavit of Mr. Wall stating the purchase
by Baylis of the English February, 1875 His
affidavit fails to show that he was person
lily present in Paris at the time OF such alleged
sale TO Bayls, or that he in reality had any other
knowledge to whether such sale was made except
from what Baylis told him. No affidavit from Bay pro-
huced and the statement OF the sale OF the manuscripts
to Bay does not appear 10 me 10 be corroborated by
any statements of other parties having actual know
tage o. any such saie mere ls no eNluece 70 snow
that the defendant DAILY has acted otherwise than in
good faith in purchasing tho manuscripts from one Wall
but from consideration of all the proofs submitted
the hearing that the weight OF the evidence s
against Mr. Baylis, his representative, Mr. WALL
ing Tor the firm Of Simmonds WALL having any right
brittle in the manuscripts that they undertook TO convey
to Mr. DAILY. From what has thus far been disclosed
must to the conclusion that right IN respect to
the play passed TO the defendant DAILY The defendants
further object that the play of 'Rose Mchel' is an
immoral production, and, consequently, that
If the plaintiffs have any rights in re-
10 be protected in them by the interference of court
of Ofequty. If this play any literary production is of
that character II Is no part o the once o TINS Court 20
protect 10 by injunction or otherwise The rights OF
the author secondary to the rights of the public
be protected from what is subversve Of good morals
But examination OF the original manuscript fails TO
show that either version is amenable 10 this charge 1t
objected by the defendants that the plaintiffs title
limited 20 the French manuscript only, and does not
embrace the manuscript Of the English version. But
both manuscripts distinctly specified in the bill Of
sale from Nichols to the plaintiff and this transfer seems
10 have been ratified by Mr. Blum, the author. In the
sfidavits OF Miches and Blum the play is simply
designated Rose Michel,' but it is apparent
the purchaser that merely the French
version transferred for representation in the
United States, and this Interpretation cannot be justly
gwen to the transfer is claimed that the complaint
Is dcmurrable for mulfiiarousness and otherwise and
that therefore the Injunction should not be granted.
The defendant DAILY has answered, and the other de-
PENDANTS have read affidavit stating that
they the right to demur The purport Of the
paint that the plaintiffs the manuscripts of the
play and that the defendants interfering with and
prejudcing their rights in various ways. IL does not
appear that complaint is demurrablc and m view
the steps taken by defendants and the provisions OF
the code in reference to dcmurrers and ap-
plications to strike out and make pleadngs de-
Unite and certain. this objection hardly be sls-
tanned The defendant DAILY states that he has sub
stantiay constructed new and original play in the
place 'sIsOse Michel II that has done it
answer to this application for injunction. The
thor and hs asslgnecs, be they citizens aliens,
the manuscript and their rights therein
ccrned protected by the law, and these rights
not be impaired or inirnged upon, either directly
Indirectly. palmer Dewitt 47 \. Y, 532 svne
Injunction continued during the pendency of tie ac-
lion, with SO costs Of motion to the plaintiffs