The Washington times., 1902-09-14
kkI TAS beautiful girl the right to
II her own facess is the @ uniaas que
i i question just decided by the

i i question just decided by the
court of appeals of Roches-
ter, n. Y. This court of eleven learned
| judges says Not
| Abigail Robertson is beautiful girl oil
eighteen years, whose home is in Roch-
ester. She. is an orphan, and suit for
the recovery of $4,000 for the unau
thorized use of her likeness as an ad-
yertisement by a -four mills company
| has been prosecuted for nearly two years
by her guardian.
| All the lower courts decided favor
ably to Miss Robertson, but the decision
1 of the court of appeals, written by IRE
siding Judge Parker. reverses the deci-
sion of the lower courts.
| Here are the most interesting por-
tions of the court of appeals decision
against Miss Robertson:
| 1.-THE complaint alleges that the
| Franklin Mills Company. one OF the de-
| PENDANTS, was engaged in general mill
| ing business and in the manufacture ana
sale of flour; that before the commence
ment of the action, without the knowl-
edge or consent of the plaintiff, defend
ants, knowing that they had no right or
printed, sold and circulated about $4,000
] lithographic prints. photographs and
likenesses of plaintiff: that upon the pa
per upon which the likenesses were
printed and above the portrait there
were printed. in large. plain letters. the
words Flour OF the Family and below
the portrait. in large capital letters.
Franklin Mills Flour; that upon the
same sheet were other advertisements of
the flour of the Franklin Mills Com
pany; that those % eco likeressses of
the plaintiff thus ornamented have been
conspicuously posted and displayed in
stores. warehouses. saloons and other
public places; that they have been rec
ogniZed by friends of the plaintih and
other people. with the result that plain
tiff has been greatly humiiiated by
SCOTS and jeers of persons who nave
recognized her face and picture on this
advertisement, and her good name has
been attacked. causing her great distress
and suffering. both in body and mind
that she wss made sick and suffered
severe nervous shock, was confined TO
her bed and compelled to employ ply
sicjan because of these facts; that de-
PENDANTS have continued to print, make,
use sell and circulate the said litho-
going facts plaintiff had suffered dam
ages in the sum OF s15,o00 The COM
plant prays that defendants be enjoined
from making printing, publishing, cir
cuiating or using in any manner any
likenesses of plaintiff in any form what
ever for further relief (which ii Is not
necessary to consider here) and for dam
ages.
No Complaint OF Libel.
ut will be observed that there is no
complaint made that plaintiff was Ii
beled Dy this publication of her portrait.
The likeness is said to be very good, and
one that her friends and acCuaintances
were able to recognize: indeed. her
grievance is that . good portrait OF her,
and therefore. one easily recognized.
has been used to attract attention to-
ward the paper upon which defendant
mill company's advertisements appear.
There is no precedent Tor sucn an
action to be found in the decisicn5 Of
this court indeed. the learned judge VINO
wrote the very able and interesting opin-
ion in the appellate division said, whlle
upon the threshold of the discussion or
the question: II may be said in the iiTst
place that the theory upon which this
action is predicated is new. at least in
instance if not in principle
Nevertheless, that court reached the
conclusion that plaintiff had good cause
of action against defendants. in that de-
PENDANTS had invaded what is called a
right of privacy'-in other words. the
right to be let alone. Mention OF such
a right is not to be found in Black
stone. Kent, nor any other of the great
upon the law. nor. so far
as the learning OF counsel or the courts