New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-01-26
NOT MALICIOUS hIBELS.
VERDICT FOR HorGaroN, MrFFLIy & co.
RESULT OF TIE LOWELL COMrANY'S REftHlI'A-
TON ar " nYIERION.'

RESULT OF TIE LOWELL COMrANYs Rhft6li'N"
TON az "nYrERION.'
The suit for $25, 900 damages for alleged
hbrls. brought 10y the John W: Lovei '"'r'"y
AGAINST Henry o. Ilorghton, George II. Milm ana Law"
aon valentine cons futing Tie firm of Hpneh'on N'iHn
x CO.. publishers Of Buston AMI New-fork, Was io"S''
TO sudden close in the Superior Court before Jh'Hic
Inrr,na,u and a Jury The Lowell Company. ORGANIZED
in this city IN March, 1851 for the purlose ~ manu-
factoring AMI selling books" published month "'el
a clean edition of Lonsfcllow's "Hyrciion." ana
claimed that It was literal reprint "i 'h"'
we, as published IN 1899 before # was copyrighted
Trc-. uron she defendants Mr. Lon fellows luolSI
era sen, ont an adycr cauiionng the trade an"
the public against buying this Illegal and unautboiZe
edition OF Hyperion" declaring that 1t was are't
infringement OF copyright and violation OF tn" lIst'
Of Mr. Long;clow- heirs and OF his publishers Ihey "'
published cheap edition OF LonGelioW WORKS anu l.
sued circular charging that the publication OF 'ls
nl,ntG contained changes and corrections made by MI
LougfclloA for the later and copyrighted edition pun
lshed Ivy the defendants They also inserted an dd''r
tisement IN me Publishers weakly Of their own AS Tue
| only authorized edition In the market ahu' rs was
alleged, visited publishers and others telling ihtu
that The plaintiffs publication unauthorized Inc
paintif claimed that the published asset tons OF te
| defendants ma icious Idols INC uCIe"','l''s
Acknowledged the ruicatoms bnt 'G rr .nSS W.
| comparison Of the editions OF Hyperion lsSucu w
sieraiions made in the copyrighted edition. The case
was tried by Roger Foster for the pninti ana Joseph
IT (hoale and A. ". Evarts for the defendants AIier
hearing the testimony Justice ngraham directed VET
dict for the defendants, saying: -, -, -.
"Thesc publications were certainly Wlthlh thc i"io
| Laid down "a privileged communications. 80 un'i'
whether the action is IN the nature oil slhuer vi INV
or for libel IN order ente the palnth 10 recover
the rlaintia was bound to show that they were pub
sncd for the wful purpose 81 INJECTING an INJURY Oh
the plaintiff aud ~ this case do not lhlhk thefe Is ay
| evidence from which the jury would De JUST
| lied finding that ssuch purpose e ,, u u.
II las bcrn moved here that the edition puDsheu ny
the paiutl WAS not exact reprint or the cdoh u
1899 but contains many corrections OF noIe ui &
imunTiant character made by Mr.. LOngfc!iOW IN Ihu
claimed hy him The very book from which inc pLaln
tins edition printed has been proved TO nc coPS
such later edition. which contained upon tho noh
statement that a copyright was claimed, ana inc pd'h
lin ATTEMPTED correct that edition so as 10 conform ~
the ton 1889. That, however, IL ala NOT 90, o
left fn the book printed by him many OF the Iaer ~
trratous made by tho author. whether or hot tucu
tun of the law United states In relation 10 cory
right IL is not necessary determine, but such rlgh'
was elaine and FAR appears, was claimed ny th'
author and the defendants I'm good faith seen calu
being made the acts tho defendants ~ proven mere
were nothing than proper to protect lhem OF
To protect their rights anc the rights ~ the representa-
% lives of the author II was entirely cohSlStth'
with good flh Tor defendants to take the necessary
steps Tor the protection of their property and TINS docs
rot prove that the object Of the publication was Az wv
Jury TO the plaiutin and not the protection 81 l'
! property. After careful examination OF All Tue cNl
deuce the case, do not think That az the caSe nov
stands the iufy would I've justified In finding on inc cNl
deure that the publication malicious must lhete
fore direct a verdict for tho defendant"