The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-12-06

The plaintiff shows that he is the r.
author and owner of pamphlet en- I
titled, "Ka Buke Moolelo o Hon. :
Robert William Wilikoki " (The
History of Hon. Robert William
Wilcox and that the same has been
duly copyrighted and published in |
this country that he began to offer
the work for sale about two months
ago at two dollars a copy that 9
about a month thereafter the de-
PENDANTS published and placed on
the market a pamphlet which the
plaintiff claims to be an infringe
ment of his copyright and to have
caused him great damage in dlmln-
ishing the sale of his work. The
title Of the defendants pamphlet is.
Duke Hao o Hawaii me ma Moo
lelo Pakui," Uron Duke of Hawaii
and appended stories).
The plaintiff sold some three hun
dred copies of his pamphlet up to
the time the defendants work ap
peared, which was sold for seventy
five cents copy, after which time,
in consequence of the competition
thereby created, he was compelled to
put down the price of his book to
one dollar copy, and even at that
price has been able only to dispose |
of about fifty copies.
The plaintiff pointed out thirteen
or fourteen passages IN the de
PENDANTS book which he claimed
were borrowed from his work and
illegally used in the preparation of
theirs. At the close of the plaintiffs
evidence, the defendants counsel
moved that the bill be dismissed on
the ground that prima facie case
had not been made out. He also
made the point that the copyright
notice in plaintiffs book was not
according to law and did not protect
him.
Several of the alleged piracies pur-
port to be translations of public
documents, such as His Majesty's
letter to the Minister of Finance and
the Marshals proclamation to gov
eminent employees to report for duty
, during the instruction of July Both,
: 1889. It is admitted that these docu
ments were published in the news
papers of Honolulu Immediately
, after the instruction; the plaintiff
? therefore cannot claim the exclusive
! right to the use of them in their orr
ginal form, though he might to his
own translations of them; a COM
Q parison of the translations, however,
, in the two works shows conclusively
that those in the defendants books
are not transcripts of those published
!, by the plaintiff, but are original
! translations. A third document
claimed by the plaintiff to have been
> copied from his work is letter
! written by r. w. Wilcox to the King
l. on the morning of the Both of July
q 1889, but as the plaintiffs book shows
that the contents of this letter were
II given in evidence in the trial o.
9 Loomens for treason, by r. w. Will
l. cox, who was witness in that case
- it does not appear how it became thu
} exclusive property Of the plaintiff
r, after having been thus given, in ,
is certain sense, to the public.
4 Of the remainder of the alleged
piracies,the greater number are mer
N brief statements of we'll known dates
% facts and proper names which hav
% a necessary similarity to the state
ment of the same matters in tn
IL plaintiffs book simply because the.
le refer to the same matters; they ar
lie all things ofpublic notoriety in whicI
-, an exclusive right cannot be claime'
- without showing of some circun
stances in collecting and arrangin.
le them, which might be the basis of
10 title, but no such circumstances ar
~ shown. There IS, however, a passag
or in defendants book which is elaine
ut by the plaintiff to be a piracy whic
Nv tends perhaps more to support tn
= = complaint than any of the other pas
lie sages which have been pointed ou
ir This extract from the Duke Hao, til
H. defendants book, is as follows:
90 90 ma Kuhina o ka Moi, ia mals
ID ma ae lakou ka halawai Aha Kr
hina maloko ka Hale Hookolokol
ne Hoomalu Honolulu nei me ma Elel
or Kanikela ma Aupuni e. Ia hoohol
ia ma ia halawai ana, Ike Kuhn
u Waiwai S. NJ Damon ka mea nan
as lave aku ka olelo ksuoha o
of halawai, moi aku la Wilikoki NJ
- ka inoa Ike Aupuni Hawaii no K
Vi malama ana ka maluhia-e haav
IL pic mai ola a me kona mau koal L
he Aupuni mamua ka lawelawe la an
bo O kekahi hama"
nc The passage in plaintiffs book {
nd which the foregoing contract
Sc claimed to be a piracy is as follows
"IJa halawai tho la ka Aba KUHN
y Ike Aupuni, ma Kuhina Noho 4
ia Alma E,na Kanikela a me Ike Kapen
he O ka moku kaua Adamu,a ua hoohol
bt tho la lakou hoouna aku la S. 1
Damon hele moi aku la Wilikol
IL haawi Pic mai iaia me kona poe
The translations of these two g,
tracts are as follows:
From the Duke Hao Hawaii
be Z" The Ministers of the King bel
Cabinet meeting in the Polio
Is Court House of Honolulu, with IL
he diplomatic representatives of foreig
is governments. 1t was agreed at tt
On meeting that S. NJ. Damon, the Mil
on lister of Finance, should be the or
he to convey the command Of the NEE
is ing and ask Wilcox in the name
the Hawaiian Government that /
ed would, for the preservation of orde
ge give himself and his soldiers up
CHI the government as prisoners befol
ar other measures should be employed
so From Buke Moolelo Hon. Robel
as William Wilikoki.
Sc, The Cabinet Council of the Go
CHI eminent met the resident Minister