New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-30
THE COURTS.
TELEGRkpHrc MESSAGES AS PROPERTY

TFLFGRkPHfC MESSAGES AS PROPERTY.
SUIT or J, J. KIrRNAS AGAINST TBE MANHATTAN
QUOTATION TELEGRAPH comANY-THE OURS
TONS INVOLVED
The suit OF John j. Herman against The
Manhattan Quotation Telegraph Company and Francis
A. Abbott, begun in 1873, and tried in the supreme
Court, Special Term. last April, summed up yes-
terday before judge Van Br1Iut The plaintiff, by an
arrangement with the Gold and Stock Telegraph Com
pany. took their business OF distributing tie cable quota
European stock and financial matters, receiving
the exclusive right for thirty minutes to the distribution
OF their and his Of that kind below Canast., and
agreeing pGy a certain su exclusive night.
He complains that the defendants took the messages
which had cost him much and distributed them by
telegraph thus snppianting HIM with his own news
This suit brought merely 10 eTGon The defendants
from further usgg hs within dfteel inmates a4tor
he sent The Manhattan Quotation Company said
they received their news Francis A. Abbott and
had knowledge until after the suit bcgun that II
came fFen plaintiffs cable kilograms One OF their
Witnesses testified that me had expressly 0ll Abbott net
TO take his information from that source. Abbott al
mted that he took the sent ont bY Herman
after hey published the bulletin board OF the
and Cotton Exchanges but claimed that they then
became public property But he had ether sources of
informant through the special kilograms Oh Jay Cooke
Il Co., Belmont q Co, and Sei.gman ~ Co.
The case rs presented yesterday 70 Judge Van Brint
turned on two qHestions First, whether there any
property in news transmitted By telegraph ana second
whether, when sach set 20 snhseribeIs such
as the stock Exchange me understanding that sub
scribers shoai Is minUTes advantage the polinE
Gf the news . 0alletin board 6uCu publication
rs % amount abandonment % all rCh'S even Toy
the brief Is ni.anies. The Manhattan Quotation Gem
pauy did the af quvstiDn, bat 'lu clam hat
The Plaintiffs spbsclDerS had niGc tho tccgr1s zen
er5 public noTs By oSposlng tIi'm ON Do4eolis "h9
al.Ov Ing free access % then Ia reply, IL Wa cEa'tt
tt the Subscribers lad power or fi-ht 10 DO any ne
making general publication kilograms Iley ~eGc
IN the petition % the printer 81 circular The student
h. a
heard sermon, the pcnt OF private cttrr, an col
gu,u, &c was setlcd, had ~ right 10 maze
ageral puh!ira,ion tie authors communication And
Though tis law had mainly been discussed Ia copy
rgt or literary cascs 10 confined ." tiirin Ht
the principle tXtcaed 20 a.. where written matter
,he result labor. The mode OF transmitting jhc
letter message b. letter, av manifold printing %
bY graph, docs not a.cl tc principle u3f ii nnnll
after, when tsc as lot ia ra!ur 81 tae plinu,
II abandoned pgbio. Inc 0niy question, DC va
argued W@s whether q tohlf 90 itlht "tl' Fi ~ g..
the nlain i1l rlc pns-es5iun o. ms exp rVf lr"c
IN uFiaallbn while 10 valuable % hii- Nth tie
| coulf f0us n, Peg % iinCa 'ni on BIS su3scl'1ers
Iadgs Van nnnt reserved LIS CcC s-JiI. EepAcn a.
Walker alt W. F. Lowry dr e case .oi iie ra..,..,
G. T. P0iiIiJa ana Wilhelm Stanley ior lie de'cGDaa'