St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-19
ST. PAUL PHOTOGRAPHER
TO Restrain Him From Sell
ing Photographs Made at
~. the Worlds Fair. 81
THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE
Claimed by the Petitioners Is
Doubted, as to Legality,
by the Court.

Judge Nelson, of the United States
court, yesterday filed decision re-
fusing to make permanent the tenn
porary Injunction granted a few
weeks ago on the applica ton of
Benjamin w. Kilburn and James
M. Davis, restraining Truman w.
Ingersoll from selling worlds fair
photographs because the plaintiffs
claim ITO have secured an exclusive
right to that privilege from the
worlds fair commission. Following
is an abstract of Judge Nelson's de-
cision:
In this case, bill in equity is filed
and an injunction asked to restrain de-
PENDANT from making, selling or offer
ing for sale certain stereoscopic views
taken by him in the worlds fair
grounds, for the reasons that the com
plainants have the sole right and priv
iiege to produce stere oscopic Views of
objects and persons taken in the
grounds of the exposition during the
time it was. held.
Compliments state that they pur-
chased and obtained from the corpora
ton known as the Worlds Columbian
Exposition the sole right to make and
sell stereoscopic views taken of OBJ
jects and persons in the grounds of the
worlds fair; that in order to protect
them in their right, no persons were all
lowed to take any stereoscopic views
in the grounds, not to enter the grounds
with a Photographic outfit, except a
hand-camera, not exceeding 4x5 inches,
and persons using such hand-camera
were required to pay 81 day for the
privilege, and to sign an agreement
that they would not make or permit to
be made any stereoscopic negatives
from the pictures so taken by them;
that defendant surreptitiously or by
bribery, took a large number of views
with a Stereo-camera of 5XS inches
contrary to the rules and regulations
and has manufactured and sold, and
is manufacturing and selling the same
to the great injury of these complaint
ants.
Upon the hearing defendant intro
duced his own affidavit, in which he adj
mits that he made and took certain.
stereoscopic views, and has since sold
the same. He alleges that the only ili-
strument he used for taking these
views was 4x5 hand-camera; that he
paid 81 per day for the privilege ofdus-
ing the camera; that 1t was Inspected
by the guards at the entrance tos the
exposition, and was passed by them
as being, in accordance with the rules,
and that he was not required or asked
to sign any agreement-w whatever to reT
frain from taking any pictures of any
kind. .-f-. ~
Judge Nelson says: Upon a full
consideration of the case. have come
to the conclusion that the ends of JUS
tice do not require the issuance of this
summary writ of Injunction, for the
following reasons:
81. That the existence of the ex-
elusive right claimed by complainants
under the contract is. in my opinion,
a matter of grave doubt. *
so. There was no showing on tie
hearing that defendant signed the
agreement, which it is averred all per-
sons with 4x5 cameras were required
to sign, aE
Again before a peremtory writ of
injunction will issue. it should clearly
appear to the satisfaction of the court
that the eomplainants' rights are GER
tain and well determined, and that If
the same are invaded, he will suffer
serious and irreparable injury TO
my mind. these conditions are not
fulfilled. AS question of law,4I have
serious doubt as to the authority of
the Worlds Columbian exposition to
grant an exclusive privilege to COM
plainants. AS to questions of fact, de-
PENDANTS affidavit is entitled to due
consideration. So
'"Again, while the bill alleges that
great and irreparable injury will re-
suit if7the injunction be not granted,
l do not find proof to substantiate that
claim. The motion for injunction is
denied" u 81