The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-09-26


circuit court Judge of the Middle
Pennsylvania district, handed down an
opinion yesterday deciding that the
preliminary injunction granted Mrs.
katherine Williams against W. T.
Smvthc, to restrain the sale of his
directory should continue until the
next session of the circuit court
Smythc is the publisher of the Peo-
pies directory, which has just been
issued here, for 1901. lie was accused
by Mrs. Williams of pirating from the
Taylor Scranton directory. the inter-
ests and good will of which were pur-
chased by the Williams Directory COM
panv
Judge Archibald found that while
Smythe unquestio ionablv did some in
dependent work in compiling the name.
occupation and address portion of the
book, in other portions he found that
much had been appropriated. The
opinion follows:
In the compilation of his directory,
the defendant has unquestiOnably done
considerable independent work, as an
examination of the book abundantly
shows. Not one OF the i4l pages which
contain the alphabetic list of residents
of the city, and make up the largest
and most important part of it, but
shows material difference from the
corresponding page of that OF the
plaintiff. Names are added and omitted
and corrections made, some of which,
to my own knowledge, are mistakes,
but all of which go to establish to my
satisfaction that as to this part of the
publication the defendant has practiC-
ally compiled II. as he declares, from
original sources, and that so far the
charge of piracy is not made out. II is
true that in the affidavits in support
of the motion the plaintiff has pointed
out few errors, which have been evil
IDENTIFY carried forward from the one
directory to the other and In general
terms alleges, but fails 10 specify, a
number more. But | am not prepared
to have this overcome the manifest
proof of independent work to which ]
have alluded, sustained as il is by the
evidence produced by the defendant of
the means employed to gather the in
formation on which this part of his
directory is based.
COPIED MISTAKES.
Unfortunately. however, the same
cannot be said as to other parts of il.
| In what is known as the Business
| Directory 442-4iS inclusive
while not a little new material has
| been introduced, yet so many glaring
mistakes which appear in the plain
| tiff's directory are found in exactly the
! same shape and connection in that of
the defendant. | am forced to the con-
| cluSion that much of the one has been
| appropriated and incorporated bodily
into the other in violation of the copy
right by which it is protected. A few
examples will suffice: Thus under the
head of Lawyers" CLARK w. Bliss
is given i'm both as Charles w. Bliss;
"R. Louis Grambs," as "P. Louis
Grambs;" IN. +. Sando," as M. F.
Sands" John T.. Murphy" as John
II. Murphy" Under the head of "Physi-
clans" Daniel II. jenkins" appears as
David II. jenkins" Under Meat
Markets." Frank NJ. Aylesworth. -;
| Wyoming avenue" is given, when the
fact is that he has long since gone out
of that business, and under the head
of Insurance Agents" we find will
lam Hobby, SO7 Mears building al
though he has not been at that office
since February last. and is said tc
have removed from the city. There are
Il large number of other instances il
which either the parties have changed
their offices or places of business, o
are no longer residents of the city, ant
Vet are accredited just as they stanC
for the year 1900 in the directory isSueC
by the plaintiff at that time.
In like manner, in the Introduction
pages / to Xlvi--where the several as
SoCiationS and corporations of the cit.
are grouped together, changes in tn
officers and organizations which hav
occurred in the last year are not noted
but on the contrary long list of thos
which have gone out of existence ar
continued in the defendants director,
the same as in the plaintiffs, while i
several which still exist the officer
and addresses, although material
changed, are found exactly as If the
had been copied. have occurred as If III
defendant had gone to original source
for his information, and no eNplanatlo
has been attempted with regard I
them. All we have to counteract thel
effect is the evidence of some add
tional original work here, as in tn
Imam part of the directory, and I'll
proof afforded by the defendants aft
davits, such as il is, as to the ind6
pendent manner in which the director
was gotten up, This is not suiticien
however, to overcome the inferenC
which ! consider irresistible from III
appearance of this matter in the dc
fcndantS directory that he has bee
: guilty of abstracting and using as III
I basis of these parts OF 1t (hoWeVer "
/. terfused with other matters) more {
I less of the plaintiffs copyrighted dire'
' tory of last year, which he had no rigi
!, to do.
Law Is PLAIN.
The law upon the subject is plai
, | AS said in Kelly VS.. Morris, Law RI
: ports, l Equity, page 697, in the ca
of dictionary. map, Guide-book
D directory, although there are certa
!, common objects of information whit
= must, if described correctly, be d.
n scribcd in the same words, subs
ouent compiler is bound to set abol
r doing for himself what the first con
- miller has done where his work has bcC