The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1884-07-30

lor Walwofth held that he would not enloin the
literary value (Hoyt vs.. Mackensie, Barb. Chan.
so saws. 1T was also held that II the contents
of the letter were such that il could not be sup
posed that the writer would consent to rs puoh-
cation, the conclusion must be that the letter
has no Ealue as a literary prodnction. But this
remarkable seqRfRT, especially as in the very
case in which the decision was made the defendant
had published the plaintiffs letters, surrepti-
tiouslv obtained exspeeting TO derive profit there
from Mr.. Justice Story has strongly coutended
for the jurisdiction Of equity 10 restrain the pub-
cation Of private Letters on the ground OF violation
Of cofdence and injury to the feelings, and this
seems the most reasonable doctrine, and IL receives
oounteuance from cases cited in the margin" OF
these cases only one Is accessible TO me: Eyre vs.
Hicbie IS Barb. 5O2 This case decides that pm
private letters received by person in his lifetime
are not assets in the hands Of his administrator
and subject TO sale to pay debts.
The receiver has only a qualified property IN
them. Atlthe most be has only a joint property
with the writer. As laid down by Lord Eldcn in
/ Gee vs Pritchard, . SEanston, t02 The property
Is qualified in some respects; that by sending the
letter the writer has given for the purpose Of read
inc it. and IN some cases Of keeping it. property
to the person to whom II is addressed yet that gift
| Is 50 restrained that beyond the purposes for
which the letter IL sent, the property is in the
/ sender Under such circumstances il is imma
terial whether the intended publication is for the
purpose Of profit or not II profit, the party is
then selling, If not for profit, he Is then giving.
| that a portion Of which belongs TO the writer.
This case is not accessible TO me, bat Judge
| urii;,, i, Fvre xs Wipbee in commenting upou
:. - .siIo Erciisb Coprt Of Chancery has az
,s',1:5 ;,s ,,r,teciion- nv means Of Injunction.
80 IS,,s IN ,nstters 81 bnSineSs or frteudshir
and for the that the writer has an Interest
in them. and it would not permit a breach OF his
confidence in allowing the publication"
= , id not NJ an,bsTiSsd 10 make pub
cstion n il 10 auy extent greater than authorized
by the writer.
| -, :, . :, 49, s,,,b a,tbor;ty
re ~, ~ In. Stary tboncl finding that Courts of
Fauity would moi exercise the injunciive power of
The C,urt unlsss the letters were Of literary value
- ~, ,ho ,tor, ,,a ,soo,,nizahle in a civil or
~ ~ !.1 -, aa,;on ~ iayr :, y,ds Suprn sec gisa
In BTandrrth vs. Lane. Paige, Ch. p. 2, Chan
siiT WalWorth refused 10 restrain the publication
| "a 4 li,ellous work but left the plaintiff 10 his
| a,;,r a. Law
aotioil ~ Xvian, - 80 J5d 4 ur., an !, ia held that
a,, IN ~ FSuty cannot yreyent the pubioation
~ ,,Tiyate Ietters merely on tie ground that such
bii.s,ior IL ninrions 10 the interests of society
ft - "a -, \, ,,,rpJ that the uriter has an
~ - Is taVs. as, .Snes;rir, IN hin, and the
IN, J. 4, Pininpsiion does not depend upon The
,nestinn rheiher the letter tsess value as liter
NV y can,no.itian
Sy'i,'I Dissst Titls Iniunction.
a., ClancsII1r Kent sCommentaries ISL: saws.
ii i1;,;,, - ,;sts iettsrs nuobt 10 be
trl,,i ,vbs,, IL yro5Id ba a breach Of Confidence
o,d trnst bs Iet,ers of cnnrtshiD or rLs injurious
| :, ~ sJS,,,r,,, ~. L,,,,;,,,s. of 5tL,,,s-
~ tI,., - 4 - R,r,hi.y II II 4Is
- "a ~ 70 s,t,t a-.;,s,' =, III ,las,
Ss ,rs ,,s ,be ,,rpose or object in The
mind ~ the narsSn sandng he letter. Tho writer
i snnrTseJ ~ intend that Inc receiver can use the
= 80 ~ " = - !, noe h.on beId
igttet I3L any laHIui p H,I .,,I T nrr,sa
n leaT ta me tbat az The COMPLAINT avers that