The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-09-29
- - = , : ; =.
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.

turer OF single article has the right 10
use and to be protected in the use OF mora
than one trade mark for that article was
decided in the negative by the United
States Circuit Court of wisconsin-AIbanv
Perforated Wrapping Paper Company VS..
John Hoberg Company The court held
that a manufacturer OF a single article
who uses large number OF different
names to designate difference in quality.
shape, or size, or merely to meet the
whims OF customers. and which tend TO
produce confusion rather than certainty
as to origin. cannot be protected in the
exclusive use Of such names as trade
marks. The court said that a trade mark
is defined TO be the name. symbol figure
letter, form, or device adopted a1d used by
a manufacturer or merchant In order TO
designate the goods he manufactures or
sells, and distinguish them from those
manufactured or sold by another, so that
they may be known in the market as his.
ana thus enable him to secure such profits
as result from a reputation for superior
skill. industry, or enterprise. But how
says the court. "can that purpose be ac
eompilsned II manufacturer dealing II, a
single article uses thousand different
trade marks to designate the article and
us origfn2 Such use neeessariIS produces
confusion and fails of the single purpose
OF the trade mark--to designate with GER
tainty the origin OF the product" One
only authority. the court said, which bo-4
directly upon this question was the cas-
OF CaDdee VS.. Deere ga H., 43e. 457l.
a deserter from the Russian naval ser
vice who was arrested and confined T.,
jail In this country upon the request
she Russian Vice Consul in Philadelphia
mas been s.elG By Judge McPherssn of the
united States District Court, Eastern dis
trlct or Pennsylvania in the case o.
orited States VS.. Motherwell Q03 Fed
Rep, 1881. TO be Illegally detained. on
the ground that the treaty between this
country and Russia provides for the ar
rest OF deserters from ships Of war. and
the defendant at the time OF his arrest
was not serving en- any vessel. but was
waiting for service on cruiser then in
the course OF construction at the ship
YARD OF Cramp Sons, in Philadelphia
In the fall Of last year the defendant was
ordered by the Russian Government to
proceed to Philadelphia as enc Of a squad
OF seamen who were intended to become
part of the crew of the variag, a cruiser
being built in that city under contract
with the Russian Government. The de-
fendant had never been on beard the
cruiser. and there was no proof that
crew had ever been organized. Not long
ago the defendant deserted the service and
took up his residence in New York.
where he was arrested Upon the hear
Ing of the case Judge McPhers3n ordered
the release Of the defendant on the follow
Ing grounds: Il. The Variag is not yet a
Russian shiP-cf-war. She is an unfinish-
ed vessel. intended, no doubt, TO becoms
a Russian crriser;; but she has not yet
acnIIirld he
that character. q The prisoner is rot
yet member OF her crew. So far as
disclosed BY the evidence, the vessel h
no such organization, in the sense il
tended by the treaty. The prisoner ar
certain associates were ordered to Phil
adelphia to serve as part of the cruisers
complement, but they have not yet begun
that service, and may never be called upon
to perform it. 3. Even if it be assumed
that the prisoner may be treated in this
proceeding as a member of a crew, be-
cause the Russian Government INTENDED
that he should hereafter take upon MIN
such status, the kind of proof required by
the treaty to prove his status has not
been offered Judge Mcpherson 1ald
that he reached his conclusion with re-
luctance. as the prisoner was undouhtei-
ly deserter from the naval service OF
his country, and the trainers of the
not foresee such a situation as the pres
ent.
Printed sheets of a scientific work de-
voted to original scientific research are
held by the United States Circuit Court
Of Appeals, Third circuit. in The case of
Read, Collector, VS.. Certain Merchandise
Q03 Fed Rep, $50, to constitute book
within the meaning OF the tariff act ex-
empting scientific works, although the
sheets were not bound nor stitched to-
gether. The court quoted with approval
from the opinion OF the lower court as
follows: "AE to the question that because
the book was imported in unbound sheets
il was not book, and, therefore. not en-
titled to free entry it is not necessary
TO say more than that no such narrow
definition of the word book can be ac
cepted by the court. The statute itself
does not undertake to make any such dis
tinction. The collected sheets containing
in orderly and connected fashion the rec
ord of the intellectual and literary work
of the author is a book unless for some
particular and special purpose a mar
rover definition is prescribed by law. The
object of the statute was evidently to re-
move as far as possible obstruction to the
freest possible circulation of the results
of original scientific enquiry tending TO
the advancement of learning and the bene-
fit of humanity.
Where, by a deed conveying to complain
ant store in a block, there was granted
to her an easement in a flight of stairs
leading to the second story at the point at
which the stairs were then located, and
she refused permission to change the loca- ;,
lion of same and commenced suit to entoin
he change before 1t was begun, the Su-
1reme Cou.s of Michigan, in the case OF
Ives vs. Edison held that she was entitled
10 an Injunction; and this notwithstanding
he fact that pending the final determine
lion of the suit the defendants removed
he stairway. and that it would cost them
great deal to restore it. The court held
hat the defendants should be required to
restore the easement as it existed when
he suit for an injunction was fled. The
defendant eoatended that to restore the
easement would take large amount OF
money. which would be entirely dispropo--
donate to the injury done the complainant.
and for that reason the court should not
grant the relief. IF such a contention is
to prevail" said the court, then. indeed.
Is the chancery court shorn of its power tic
protect persons in their right of property.
II this doctrine is to be sanctioned
person engaged in large enterprises n
seize upon rights of less magnitude L
his own and II an appeal is made to |
aw fer protection he may ignore the rigf
II the injured and the tendency OF the
egal proceeding; and il he will put money
enough into the new enterprise before a
inal decree is entered. so that 1t will cost
lin much more to restore the right he has
taken than the jury may regard
he right as worth he may prevent the
,ntering of any decree whatever against
himself. and may mulct the person who