The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-11-21
ID. RICHARDSON'S HUMBUG
HIS COPYRIGHT SCHEME 4 "PRAUD
FROM STARR 10 FINISH."
Supreme Court Justice Childs Denounces the
Great Copy Fighters "Hou Have Been Sc
iected" Committee Of distribution a. IA
Gross Fraud and Imposition Ills Decision.

BvYPALo, y. Y. Nov. 20 Justice Henry G.
Childs. sitting in special term Of til" supreme
Court. to-day haHdsd down his decision IN favor
of the defendant in the case OF James ;. Blrcus
vs. August /. Dorries. BIrcus sued to Recover
sS4, the value Of the messages and papers Of
the Presidents" and $50 protest fees on a
check that Mr. Dorrirs had given as his first
payment. but had cancelled before 1t could be
cashed
Mr. Dorries set up the defence that the sale
had been made TO him by false RET re-entation.
and " hen the case zane TO trial be testified that
the agent who secured his signature TO tn con-
tract Of purchase introduced himself 10y tho
nam" OF Pcndleton. Pendleton showed him "A
letter notifying him of his appointment rs a
suh-Commi tee OF the Commute on Di~tflbu-
ton. stated that 1t was IA costly government
work prepared especially for Members Of
Congress. that a certain number had been al
lotted TO each member and that u list of names
Of a very limited number OF prominent men
had been furnished 10 the subcommittee in
each Congress district, To each Of whom one
set was To- be furnished al the riiiculouS,y low
price of s3i for the ten volumes. The ole. was
for the immediate present. and Mr.. DorrieS
must place his order forthwith or lose the op-
portuuity Of ever getting the work.
porrirs signed the contract blank hut soon
ulltI dIu iflIitu lNh' S'illf 'l INV dktllt
representations were false and stopped pay
ment OF tie check Barcus sued him in the
municipal court. and being beaten there APP
pealed to tho Supreme Court. Here he Is
beaten again. for Justice Childs reanlrmed the
Judgment with costs
The justices opinion Is caustiC throughout.
II says in part: In this cas- il is true that no
testimony was given tending TO show that the
representations testified by the plaintiff to have
been made TO him by Pendleton We're false. VI
1t appears from an inspection Of the plaintiN',
complaint, which may be here considered ~ an
admission on his part that the same were false,
known by Pendleton to he false and made for
the purpose OF Undue ne the defend nj to enter
into the contract in question, and considered a.
n part OF tbs on ire transaction. were material
and authorized by the plaintiff. The contract
is headed app ication Blank and request the
Committee on Distribution. .by II. j. Bodmer.
Treasurer. 10 have delivered to him one so Of
books for which he agrees to pay s3t to Il J.
Bonner. Treasurer Committee on Distribution.
and is indorscd on the face thereof, Accented
for the committee. I. H.. Burnett. sub-Com-
mittee. This paper, taken in connection
with the allegations Of the plaintiffs compliant.
referred to. that the pla.ntiil non is and az all
the times hereinafter named was engaged in
business under the firm name or style OF Com
mittee on Distribution, l., upon the face Of II,
an attempt to perpetrate "A fraud upon any
person 10 whom 1t is prese ted for signature
"lhe plain purpose Of the person who origi-
mated this system of obtairinc subscribers Tor
these books was to defraud the public The
very assumption OF the name Committee on
Distribution which this rlaintiN saws
he did assume rs a business name or
style. imparts a fraud. The addition 81
A. por,a RoIp,ar Tr.neprar ~ ,la Eo,,
mittne on Distribution. extends the fraud. aud
the purported acceptlrce Of the order for the
signed II. II. Burnett, subcommittee
No. a. it whenever n person /
found to sign the order. II This plant n
was doing business under the firm name or
style Of COMMITTEES on Distribution II still
was his indi yidual business. 1t required
no Treasurer Of the on Dis
tribution. II required no subcommittee
No. 4 n pass upon his orders. The assump-
ton Of that style and method 81 doing bushes,
plainly reveals the fact that this plaintiff in
tended 10 send out his emissaries or agents
10 ofectu1te his fraudulent intent NV max
ing Just IA false statements 8 were
made by Pendleton TO the defendant. In
deed the statements made by Prndl.ton were
in exact line with the paper to which he
procured the signature OF the defendant. the
whole being ag-oss fraud and imposition upon
the defendant, who was md iced 10 believe by
these and papers that he WIS one OF
a few favored ind viduals who might purchase
an invaluable ork Which could not be obtained
in any other manner or from any other source
than that thus offered, and that II he neglected
10 close with such offer instantly he would be
forever deprived OF having in his possession
this great work.
IT i not difficult to see how the defendant
might he and was Influenced by these state
ments to put his name TO this paper, which.
upon the face of it. imT arted the same false and
fraudulent statements a. those really made by
Che plaintiff agent. who. doubtless. was parti-
oops criminis In the transaction. These