The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-03-08

The jury in the case of B, Il Leonard
and Patrick Mulheriu against the
Equity Improvement company, brought
in verdict yesterday morning to the
effect that the United States Circuit
court for the western district of Penn
sylvania had no jurisdiction in the
matter.
Ambrose Mulley against J. L. Will
liams, proprietor of Williams Scranton
City directory for infringement OF
copyright. was the next case called.
Attorneys S. b. Price and H. NJ Han.
nah represented Mr. Mulley aud At
toruey Il. II. Risley Of Utica, N. Y,
and Attorney C. S. Woodruff Of this
city, Mr.. Williams
In 1855 Mr.. Mulley had copyrighted
II book called "Mulley's Scranton Street
Directory and City Guide" feature
OF which was a street directory show
ing the location and length Of the
streets OF the city. The hook was
published in 1886
In 1887 Mr.. Mulley entered into au
agreement by which Mr. Williams was
permitted to use his street direction in
the Williams City directory Of that
year. 1t is alleged that every year
since then the street directory has been
feature of Mr. Williams city dirsc-
tory and that it has been used without
Mr. Mulley's consent To recover dam
ages for that infringement the suit was
brought
WHAT DEFENDANT CLAIMS
1t is conteuded on the part Of Mr..
Williams that when he used Mr.. Mul-
ley's street directory in 1887 he discoy-
cred number of errors aud the follow.
ing year he had it entirsly revised and
corrected from information obtained
by agents appointed by him, He
thereafter considered that it was his
property
When the case was called counsel for
the defense asked that the plaintiffs
declaration be dismissed When the
plaintiff rested, defendants asked for
non suit, but both motions wsre re-
fused. An effort to get binding in.
structions for the jury also failed
At 4 o'clock p. III. the case went to
the jury on the charge of Judge Buff
ington after arugmeuts had been made
by Attorneys Risley and Price The
jury an hour later returned a verdict
TO the effect that Mr. Williams had in
friuged on Nj Mulley's copyright
and that he should pay him aS compsn.
Sation therefor TIE sum Of $l66,67. Mr..
Risley, counsel for Mr.. Williams, at
once gave notice that hs would file
reasons for a new trial within ten days.
THAT INJUNCTION CASE.
After the Miller case went to the
jury argument was heard on the appli-
cation for an injunction by William
Kellogg to prevent F. W. Burcaw, of
Hazlston. from infringing on a weather
strip, of which Mr.. Kellogg 10 the
patentee. The defendant claims that
his idea is such an improvement on the
Kellogg strip as is allowed by law.
Attorneys Hulslander and Vosburg ap-
peared for the complainant and Attor-
ney W. S. Diehl for Mr.. Burcaw. After
listening to the arguments Judge Buf-
fngton took the papers and reversed
bis decision.
Immediately afterward a new trial
was argued for in the case of Thomas
Ruddy, executor of Francis ]. Rudy,
deceased, against the Michigan Mutual
Life Insurance. company. Mr.. BUDDY
sued to recover S., 900 which he gsaid
was due on life insurance policy held
by Francis J. Ruddy. The case was
tried a year ago before Judge Buffing-
ton and verdict returned in favor OF
the company, which alleged that the
policy was obtained by false representa-
tions,
Ex-Judge W. II. Stanton argued for
new trial yesterday afternoon and
Major Everett Warren and Attorney
George NJ. Watson opposed the mo-
ton.
The session of the court will close
today.