Arizona republican., 1917-06-22

the Associated Press scheme of news acquisition, viz: the cooperative fea- ture.
 Plaintiffs bylaws explicitly forbid any member from imparting to any | one Associated Press news in ad- vance of publication, or to conduct his business in such a manner that such news so furnished him may be communicated to any person, firm, corporation. or association not en- titled to receive the same i e., anyono
 not in good standing with and in the | Associated Press.
 "The principal facts upon which the court below based the first head of injunction are, that in Cleveland, Ohio, IS published newspaper which has 1 Associated Press membership and for considerable time in it's employ a telegraph editor who would natur- ally receive incoming Associated Press items. This man Gin accordance with | by-laWs) was charged with the trans
 mission to plaintiff of Cleveland news
 possessed of more than local interest
 and (properly) received pay from plaintiff for so doing.
 Defendant corrupted this editor to II apprise it's agents of what he thus
 learned and disseminated such news as
 tiic lcSull Ol us OWn leSlIlmdte ldDOr.
 The second head of injunction is
 based on the fact that there is in New
 York city newspaper which has the
 service of both plaintiff and defendant.
 In it's publication office is one of the printing telegraph machines aforesaid
 and the managers of said newspaper were induced to permit agents of de- fendant to enter their office, read what
 was coming in on the machine and use the information thus acquired. . The material facts on which plain tiff moved for such injunctive relief as was refused below. are undisputed and as follows:
 "The natural place for receiving news from Europe (and indeed be- ! yond) is the Atlantic seaboard and es- | pecially New York. Bulletins and ear ly editions put out by members of ] plaintiff in the sea aboard cities, are read \ by agents of defendant and the sub l stance thereof transmitted by wire | westward. sold to defendants custo- mers, and by them printed. perhaps without any knowledge on their part | that the origin of, and sole basis for \ defendants dispatch is (e g). bulle- tin posted in New York by member \ of plaintiff, as the result of plaintiff S efforts; and certainly without any \ such information given them by de- VI fendant.
 N That this practice obtains, the an- M swer admits and justifies the same as M matter of law. while alleging Gin sub- II stance) that it is no more than a part 'I or legitimate outgrowth of the news MI paper habit of utilizing tips
 NJ This word signifies a bare intima MI ton that something has happened When such tip has been verified by M independent investigation on the par nf hn ha nfs M may be and are disseminated as dis M covered by the journal or news agenc, MI getting the tip This practice may lI we believe, be regarded as universal il
 news gathering circles.
 MI "The district judge did not conSide MI the utilization of tips as having an, N necessary bearing on the bodily appro W priation and sale of news from earl, WI editions and bulletins; and felt satis MI fled that as matter of law plaintiff should have all the relief demanded 4 but regarding this last question as t J the effect of publication by an Asso FS ciated Press paper, IS one of first i'm # presson, refused the third demand o MI plaintiff and remitted the matter t. MI this court.
 WI If the facts are as we have nov MI found them. no party asserts that tn | acts restrained by the injunction as is Wu Sutu CdN Dt JuSlllltu-tltfltl III idW V MI morals.
 WI There is no difficulty in discrimi WI mating between the utilization of tips Al and the bodily application of another MI labor in accommodating and stating in MI formation.
 HI What is before us, is whether it i ld lawful and if unlawful whether euuit, MI affords remedy. for the admitte'
 WI practice or habit of appropriatini
 
 MI result of plaintiffs labors and sellinj or otherwise gainfully using the same MI "When one copies a statement iron MI a bulletin, he cannot assert himself t. WI be possessed of any certain fact othe VII than that of his own appropriation, tn MI only fact he knows is that the bulletin T maker made an assertion; but he ha MI taken the news. because that is wha MI the bulletin proclaimed, if it's make MI was skilful in his business.
 NI Property covers everything that ha an exchangeable value; that news pos sesses the quality stated, seems ob WI vious enough when it is observed tha WI defendant takes it, in order to eX
 change it against dollars
 MI After quoting number of case
 MI heretofore decided the court contin
 ued:
 WI Assuming now the existence a SoIlle t1fllt, ol SOlIle DlOpclly llSnl T. MI plaintiff and to it's news. the qualitie f producing exchangeable value may b noted. Regularity and reliability. tn
 fruit of organization and expenditur MI are of course necessary. but all that INI vain unless the news is fresh, earl MI and if not always first in point of timt NM as prompt as any Time is of the es lHI sence: and the basic question on thi Hl branch of the discussion is how lon MI dces the property quality endure i lNI news.
 NN Plaintiff is membership corpora NM ton, it's members cooperate in new Hl1 gathering and each has in his own local NlI ty a several right to and ownership in tf NM results of plaintiffs labors, viz: th NM news. The rights of members whetht EN printing in Duluth or Galveston. Ne RN York or San Francisco, are equal, an MI the aggregate of their rights is u INl II aintiirs right. If it be admitted thi I'M plaintiffs right of property in it's new VlI once existed such existance was u WHi benefit of all it's members, who, how w ever lowing to the earth's method M rotation) cannot simultaneously exc kH else their several rights. Yet all excl IAW else them at the same hour of the NNI several days.
 gV eff iS Soupht if mt tO limit the dOt