The New York herald., 1876-11-28
BOOTHS THEATRE.

few days since there was argued at Special Term
of tho Court Of Common Pleas, before Judge Van
prunt a motion behalf Of Edwin Booth Tor IN
junction restraining the OF his connection
with Booths Theatre. At the argument Mr Luxe n.
Lockwood appeared tor Mr. Booth and Mr.. Benjamin
f. Russell Tor Messrs Jarrett Palmer the lessees Of
the theatre. aecisio0was given yesterday by Judge
Van Brunt The following rs the opin on, which
give IN lull owing to tho interesting question in
yolved:-
In about the year ls6s the plaintiff, at the cor
ner Of Twenty.ihrd street anu Sixth avenue IN the
ci,y Of New York, built theatre, which hs called
BOOTHS Ihcatrcn From February, loog, 10 the Both
OF January, lSs3 the plantin managed the SAID thea
ire aud obtained great reputation ior tho said theatre
under The name OF .Bootn's Theatre" TN this last
meationcd date the plaintia executed release to Ju-
Is. Booth OF tha theatre IN question under The
following ucslanation:-..Au those certain premises
the southeriy side OF Twenty ylhird street,
between tiiln aud sixth avenues, and known ss
Dcotns Theatre, 10 the ci,y oi New York"
ON the 7h day OF April 1874 the said Junius y.
Booth assigned this lease 10 the defendants. In the
month OF November Edwin Booth executed mort
gage Oakcs Ames upon The theatre, ia which mort
gage tie premises ac.crbcd by mties AMI bounds
t. winch description IS added the words "oelhg the
premises Snown as Booths Theatre, Ia ,hc city OF
New YORK A mortEago was also gwen 20 stnlon
Wormser the said pfenses which was forcrio ed,
the premises conveyed 70 Oliver Ames, IA febrn-
airy. iS,5 by the description. Mr. William II.
Prtcaar having been duly appointed oi SAID
premises the action 10 iorecosc The Wormsef m.rt
gage Nv direction the court executed an agreement
by which The defendants were accepted tenants 'O
the property knowm a. Booths lhcatre' upou the
terms and conditions set iorth IN the said lease 70
Junius y. Booth excepting tcriain nsodiicatoEs con-
tancd ia salI agreement and since the execution OF
this agreement upto he present toe the defendants
have carrying on the thcatric business a. SAID
theatre. Designating she same on hand bills and
biuoards as Booths Theatre, q representing
themselves rs the lessees aud INNINGS
lhc plant1 claiming tina. by the use OF the maine
of .'BootlI's Theatre the pubic VIII be mised INTO
believing tna ne Is sil the manager o; this theatre
aGd that they viii he dcccvca into going lh. thea
ire suppcSlng thai painin stll acts h.re and that
he will be injured thereby, brings this actlon
STRAIN the defendants from the use OF the name OF
"Booth's Theatre am unable TO how the
Juucon asked can be granted. The plantin mas buii
pubhc buiidlne and chris,encd u Booths Theatre"
lie has acquired Tor that unner that name reputation
place OF publlc amusement.
Having thus Increased the value OF the premises
By that reputation be has rnorigagcd aud leased
iucm under the name he had given tnein, and there
Is no doubt. from the manner IN which the premises
described In the lease TO janus ~ Bootn, that
one ci the Inducements 10 the lease the pupilc
reputation which Booths Theatre had acquired a
place oi puuiic amusement The defendants have
succeeded all these rights and one OF them
TO me Is the name by which the plainlin has con-
vcycd these premises. IL ls TO be borne IN mind
mat there Is no attempt upon the part OF the dc
PENDANTS conceal tho TACT that they the lcssc,s
managers OF this theatre. What, under these clr
cumstanc.s, does the use Of the name Booths Fac
atre y Indicate the publicf Nothing more, i'm
asine Than that this theatre was built by the plann
tnal this il the theatre which he named upon
slruc,ion .Bootns Theatre" aud the place OF anusc-
iucnt when hal become known 10 The pubic under
Thai maine. Tue fac,s developed IN the are Tar
from bringing II within the principles LAID oown IN the
OF Howe vs.. soaring 40 How Pr. X, i4), relied
upon by the plaintn as an authority to support his
claim In this action In that case the assignccs OF
i Howe conducted the whole business IN his name and
the Court upheld the injunction upon the ground that
II was against pubic polcy 10 allow business 70 be
conducted under any other name than that 81 the
aclGa parties DONG H. II seems 10 me That the
plaintr, by his acts, has affixed his TO the the.
aire so that mas grantees aud their successors have
tbe right TO call TINS building "Booths THEATRE the
name which he has gwen IL. The motion Tor n.
! Junction must be denied, with $40 costs.