The New York herald., 1878-09-15
THE TITLE TO "M'LIss."
JUDGE LAWRENCE TAKES TIME TO DECIDE
WHO HAS THE RIGuT TO II

JUDGE LAWRENCE TAKES TIME TO DECIDE
WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO IT.
An action was recently brought In the Supreme
Court in this city by Kaiio Mayhew widmer against
Clay NJ Greene, A. s. thompson, John E. McDonough
and Poole Donney to determine the ownership OF
the play entitled "M1iss" A temporary injunction
granted by Judge Donohus. the application Of
exJudge A. j. Dt,enhoefer, restraining the defend
ants from producing at the Grand Opera House, OF
which the defendants Poole & Donnelly are the
lessees, the play already named. Argument was
heard yesterday In Supreme Court, Chambers, on
question OF continuing this Injunction. Tho
papers, as road BY plaintiffs attorney, declare that
plaintiff purchased from Cox the adaptation
Of Bret Harts's sketch "M'iss" that she afterward
employed defendants Greene and Thompson to revise
tho adaptation that after such revision deend-
ants threat to dispose OF the play to other par
tes asked plaintiff to sign contract (rsad In 0our
and that plaintiff not knowing hor rights and
litigation, did sign such contrac that said contract
was dated February T. 1878. and provides "that the
said Greene and Thompson In consideration Of agree.
ments. &C., said transferred and conveyed
TO said Aayhsw the sole right tor America, 70 have
'M'nss;' ina. Yuba Bill ana Mra smith are two
1sse'n sna do no. sppssr IN ny Bro. M.ros sesen
number Of letters passing between Thompson,
ia tho nnnA papers P@s pls
sented on the part OF the defendants show that in
1Ss3, prar 70 the purchase OF Cox they copyrighted
the tltie OF M'Llss;' that the parties neeoti.
atng TO induce plantf 10 appear In the titusr role
Of ihe play and they alegs finally refused. They
deny ihe proprietary right OF plantn, and assert
that feene anu Thompson originated the work.
Ex-Iudgs Dttenhoeier argued in favor OF sustain.
Ing ITO injunction. II seemed, he said, that his
learn ed adversary, misconceivng the scope OF the
acthn m had accumulated testimony on immaterial
issu II was question oil copyright property
rigba stage right that was at issue In tho
Tne question simply was, What are tue rights
hcr and the defendantsf Whether plaintiff had q
copy right or not In the play, or whether defendants
had properly right or not, seemed to him I'M
material, Tor the defendants had conveyed oil their
rights, good, ba or Indifferent 10 the play, and
ostOpped from impeachng or assaulting nor title
he copyright alleged to have been Obtained by
PENDANTS In 1873 was Informal They only filed the
title page and 1t has been repeatedly held By United
acquire any propesty ny simply ming title page and
then waiting Tor some popular play 10 DO wriiten
which he would hiacn 10 his title page He therefore
urged that this copyright, Whatever II was WORTH had
passed by contract TO the plaintIM
Mr.. Charles W. Brooke followed In argument on
behalf Of tho DEFENDANTS He contended that the
Court had no JUN Cton the question OF the copy
right was exclusively within the jurisdiction OF the
United States courts aud that no injunction should
issue when the meaning oil an agesment was IN doubt
lie INSISTED that Lie pain,n rs disclosed In tho cor
respondepce, had agreed TO como and play anu at
the last moment backed down that defendants having
expended large sums oil money, should not, in u
doubtful case, DO enJoined preiiminariy, but tnat
paintin should be remitled for remedy to regu-
lar trial the issues.
Judge Larremore intimated that the question OF
Jurisdiction he had doubt but that there was
nothing deicndants point for the question of copy
oil agreement In relation 10 copyright The Judge
took the papers, reserving his decision