New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-06
THE COURTS.
PROPERTY In NEWS.

IN
HERMAN AGAINST THE MANHATTAN STOCK
QUOTATION COMPREHENSION OF NEWS
TO CUSTOMERS BY TELEGRAPH ONLY QUAIL
neutrality-suspicious. FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Judge Van Brllnt has rendered his opinion
in the case OF John j. Herman against the Manhattan
Stock Quotation Company and Francis A Abbot case
involving the right of ownership In teegraphic news
and decides that such right exists and Is not forfeited
by sending out the news to subscribers but only
after complete and full abandonment or such
right by a general publication The Stock and Cold
Telegraph Company had acquired from the Associated
Press right to the exclusive for 80 minutes Of the
foreign financial received by the Associated Press,
and had sold this right Mr.. Herman 1t charged
that the defendants took this news before
the time that the plaintiff abandoned 1t to tho
general public and sold it as their own.
Judge Van Brunt thus states the questions involved:
First had plaintiff any right Of property in the for
ein financial obtained by him from the Associated
Corporation, and transmitted by him to bis Gus
tomers Second has the defendant the Manhattan Quo
taton Company, made use OF this news by transmitting
il over its wires TO its customers Third II the plaintiff
had right OF property in the news received by him, dld
he abandon such right when he transmitted the news to
his customeTsf
Judge Van Brunt holds that II the Associated Press las
any right Of property the transmitted to IT, then
the plaintiff succeeded to such rights for the space OF at
least 80 minutes after its receipt from the Ass0cateu
examines the defendants claim that there was no prop
erty i'm the news because before It was gathered In
Europe by the Associated Press agents 1t was open to
any oneto collect and send and the first conner had
right to get and send II. He says that whle anybody
had right to collect and send the news 1t IN dhcnlt to
how such right be extended to authorize the
publication here which bad been collected by the
agents Associated and autographed to them
at great expense without its consent 1t would be an
atrooous doctrine hold that dispatches, the resutof
the diligence and expenditure of man, could with I'M
panty be piered and published by another" A mans
right publish gathered BY bis own diligence can
not be nterfered with but II no seeks profit by the
superior diligence OF his rivals IL is unjust that he should
allowed do until the right OF property has been
abandoned by publication. man may impress upon
materials which open TO all the world right OF
property where he has az tho result OF his
own efforts and expenditures, collected ana
reduced il to q form seryceabe the public; but this
right preclude another by his efforts and
diligence from collecting independently ana ulzhS the
materials Applying these principles, the As3oci
ated Press has right OF property III All news ttaSted
TO-, - 5 n rit ~ thar isboT AMI ia yars rs
news Impressed on by collection and I transmits
sion by cable mt great expense To say that the Assoc
ated Press could restrain the publication OF its dis
patches any person who should HurrepttOusy obtain
them, would be- To hold tut no private individual could
prevent the publication Of his own private dispatches
they should happen to relate to public events Mr.
Herman he holds, has succeeded to the rights OF INC
Associated Press as FAR as relates 70 foreign nnsncia
news, and Is entitled 20 protection III us usc unl nc
jude Van Brn Hen discusses nj length the second
question whether IN fact the defendants ana use tue
news belonging 10 The pl nth lie Mods iAt a. II TO-
news ;rom Francis a. Abbot; that as Mr. Abbot vas
except Mr. Kieruans tapes and In2nnods l,nt 70 eus
fOmois by the plaintiff; he had been seen copying rs
patches from hleln3ns mslfnments |I I
afteward appeared IN tho tapes OF the Gti 'hd!ht -
errors made by Mr. Herman were reproduced By the de
!enutnt' eia a. - 81 H'o nj NED To- h" IN
c particle u foreign financial news olinef from oIa-r
news Was used by tue defendant. ON the question OF
whether the Manhattan Quotation COMPANY should De |
held sponsibo AhbOts acts. Judge Van Buu says
The principal cannot ayal himself ana knowingly |
profit by te wrongful acis OF his agent Without oeiiS
liable therefor. Abbot took particular care never 10 M
qure from his Bowen where he got his news ir0nl
ana the Hanhattl Company, although frequently IN
formed that Abbot hld no sources " Information Oh his
Iin II mecesslry IN make an investigation OF the
subject Tho Company must therefore be ncded Ia ho
J,ds y1I BIuat then discusses the third question. If
tbe .,isslon OF me rows to customers amounts
general publication, then II Il clear that al right OF tne
ug, ,rrtafion o a drama the stage, the delivery OF
lecture audience, the preaching OF sermon 10
congregation dO not work 4 forfeiture OF the authors
lisi.t IN the Lecture drama or sermon. distinction
between general and = qnAhei publlcdtoh J. focos
ulzei-thr later not working forfeiture OF the dopery
right Letters belong 10 the writer and tue person 70
Vhon tlry are addressed has only limited Ight ~ |
them, lot authorizing MN tc uli'h men eNvclt ,of u'
own protection Judge Van brunt continues App{. |
in these principles "a the now under discussion, II
evident that II Nj kleiIi IN tlnsnttci us ioIeitt
financial usW- his customers for thcir information ~
means TlauUiA slips exclusively, 10 tolll restrain
the pub caOn b. these persons Of such ntraence Is
there auy difference IN principle because he MfItts
To- has customers by tclegaphf | am unahio 20
SEQ any distinction. Tie telegraph l. simply
"A means which modern science has adopted 10 the
purpos,- communicating between persons alta distance
nom each other. and unable % 500 mat 10 makes
any di airuca the principle governing written a. ni-
muuc4 ions. whether AlI hcruan, sitting NJ his ohlcc,
by meals az fLp tel- graph, writes his communication
u3on paIcr u tao office ~ bis customer or writes the
rttipn in bis Office AMI then sends II 10 ms
,u4tot,.i II was claimed upon tho tltl o th' cause
tl.t Mr. Herman. having placed ms Iuachnts IN the
Ollie. nf his without restricting l-cl u5e OF
the information which he conveys 10 Them D.
means Of SAID machines. cannot rc,uhln thelf
making any Of D. which they may VISA. IL
seems 10 mA that this proposition cannot be
.i-t ps because although there may not have been any
distinct restriction placed by Nr Herman upon the
customer use Of the Information conveyed 90 n, yt
IA ii, evident at the customer Eus have .uhIes7,0Dl
from the very nature 81 the Transaction has be had no
risnt 10 use or publish the said information except an
connect ON with his own business Judge Van Bfunt
cIt,s with approval the parallel cse on lhM point OF
Turner arainst Robinson, tried IN tho trSh thlnceFy,
yutra tine exhibition Of painting was h"id % give 30
right TO others 10 copy H. and cOnclude5 s follows:
IL would therefore seem that the transmission Oy MI
K!eriau OF his foreign financial ncws 10 MS customers
WAS only qualified publication, when Cd nDt IOIc4t
hi, right OF property therein The planGh i therefore
entitled 10 Gd Incut restraining mo fcndnts nom me
OF the iOr On financial reports VI the pldlnb
ELECTION MONEYS.