New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-21
BILLIE TAYLOR ~ BALTIMORE.

[ An INJUNCTION AGAINST FOED REFUSED ny 1iiE
UNITED STATS CIRCUIT cOrRT-ArPHoriIAT-
mo 4 rIAY BY MEANS or THE MEMORY NO1
FORBIDDEN ny TIKI DECISIONS.
IRON An OCCASIONAL CONFECTIONERY oP ruE TRrnuNfl
BALriMo April ia suit ut law was
today decide the United States Circuit Court her
which involves the question Of alien suihors' rghts
in unpublished manuscripts IN the United states.
The legal right and title 10 the production Of tho piece
Bee Taylor In America ye~ted in LdUard L. Rice aud
DOyley Carte John r. Ford. Of Baltimore. announced
the piece at biz opern house and played on Monday April
H. "A version In which the Dialogue was substantially
transcription OF the original unpublished dialogue ~
furnished 10 Messrs Carte and Rice by the author, H.
T. Stephens The only noticeable difference m minor
points where words ~ similar meaning uscd instead
OF the original words Tho whole plot the stage bust
ness entrance o1is and oil ~ thc postons and move
menis on TIE stage were Identical and the scenery
costumes and acccssoncs were close imitation q the
standard production. On Wednesday writ Of hJunc
ton against Mr. Ford was asked for by Mc.srs Rice and
Carte on the ground that THE unauthorized production
was an infringement on the rights Of The awful pro
pretorr. The set for Saturday ana again
postponed ~ Monday, April II, Mr.. Ford meantime
Withdrawing the play pending the trial
III the answer 10 the complaint Mr. Ford denied the
originality Of the competition in view Of the publication
works OF the title and general character
denied the power OF the Englh author 10 transfer any
title by assignment Averred that the piece had been
published IN
it, production by him. and finally ayerred that 20 much
Of the original play found In his version had been
taken by means ~ memory alone. His nndavts In reply
did not seriously cOntrOyert substantial imitation
by him Of the plaintiffs piece but forth various pub
LEGATIONS Of the summary Of action and argument Of the
play from which, together with the words md music and
such benefit could be gotten from memOrizng the
performance his H0rd'sl was constructed
The opening argument for the plaintiffs directed
simply 10 setting forth the rights Of the plaintiffs under
the Law In unpublished manuscript, and the in
| fringement by the defendant OF ihcse rights Thu
argument for the defence consisted mainly Of
repetition OF the deicnces I'm the answer,
| especially with reference 20 the night
meorze the language and business Of the piece aud
it. subsequent writing down for the purposes Of acting
the authorities on both sides fully cited aud dis
cussed In rendering his decision Judge Morris said:
In view Of the fact that In this whole OF
the plot Of the piece many OF the costumes and consd
been shown aud described various publications the
case presents Tor my decision the naked question
which the dialogue only is unpublished can perform the
same and at the same time restrict those who hear It
from using such portions they be able mem0rc,
and, by combining them with the various publications.
etc. produce play which Is colorado Imitation OF tho
After briefly reviewing tho authorities and pointing
out the fact that their tendency toward allowing
nemordng aud that IN this case the facts such rs
TO admit Of the possibility OF the truth OF the "memoz
absence OF previous decisions his Judgment might be
| otherwise, no declined IN the present case
himself 'p in opposition to The %eisRt OF authority
The expressed It's regret that 10 coud 70
the plaintiffs the value OF their play upon which much
care and money lnd evidently been expended and by
whom the play had been made but IN the pres
OF the decisions such property cannot be pro
tected unless proof be- furnished that the piece had
been actually stolen by suTrepuousy noting down
by bnbing employer 70 betray the confidence OF
ha principal In closing the opinion, the Judge spoke
the present convincing illustration OF the need
OF international copyright law The decision OF Judge
Morris operation beyond HIS Judicial district
applies only the motion for preliminary injunction
the Judge expressly reseryng the question OF the view
he should take upon the point OF Law At the hna
j hearing OF the case