Year: 1875

few days since a temporary injunction was granted
by Judge Curtis in the Superior Court, enjOning
Messrs Connolly and Pet from further producing the
drama "Around the World in Eighty Days" The play
was brought out by parties complained against in
the Bowery Theatre time ago and later at the
Grand Opera House. II also announced that they
we're to produce the play Rochester The complain
ing parties Thomas A. French, theatrical agent,
and the Klralfy troupe, who playing the piece
at the Academy OF Music. Judge Curtis yesterday
rendered his decision in the making the injunction
permanent The following is


JUDGE CURTIS OPINION


A French author, Jules Verne, composed story
'caled 'Le Tour du Monde en- quatre vingt gours"
With the assistance OF French dramatst, D'Ennery,
he wrote play giving it the same name These authors
caused the drama TO be translated INTO English and
called "Around the World In Eighty Days They then
sold both versions Of the play Mchelis through
whom the manuscripts Of the English version and all
rights therein for the United States and the Canadas
were transferred assigned to the plaintiffs. The
defendants have produced play under the same TN
and claim mat IL rs dramatization by them Of the ON
inal story Of Jules Verne after he had pub.
hshed il and made 1t the common property OF
the world The play is written by Jules Verne
and D'Ennery and translated for them into Eng
Ish; has been published with their consent,
and embraces various characters incidents and scenes
that foreign to the original story. The difficulty
with the defendants claim IS that their version con
tains what is not found in the original story but is
found in the plaintiffs play and unless adopted from
the latter could be very satisfactorily accounted
for Again this view that the defendants indebted
the plaintiffs play for their version is trengthened
by deposition Of the defendant Pet, made In another
proceeding, in another court and which the plaintiffs
produce, In which he says IN effect that, having at
tended in November ls74 the representation of the
play in Paris he produced four ffths of the scenes
Incidents business, plot situations effects mechanical
and otherwise, Of the play, or his version Of IT.
from memory The proofs submitted fail to sustain
the defendants position that they produced their play
by the dramatization Of the original book The next
claim Of the defendants is that even their version
was made from memory after witnessing the represen
taton upon stage of the original play they have the
right 10 avail themselves OF this course The Court Of
Appeals all the Judges concurring, held n Palmer
De Witt a. ~ Y 532 that the property OF an author
or his assgnees IN unpublished manuscript is pro
tected governed its enjoyment and transfer
the other personal property, and that the rep
resen taton upon the stage OF dramatic composition
affect the manuscript and the rights of the
thor therein and not abandonment OF dedication
OF the public but the Court did pass upon the
play, might lawfully commit to memory
and then publish it TO the world Learned
judges have differed upon this latter question: bat il
would to better accord with justice and good
morals that the carrying away in the memory in the
stenographc notes Of spectator of the contents of
play, unauthorized by the owner is an Infringement Of
his proprietary rights II is a surrepttous mode of
procuring the literary property of another and when
done from motives OF pecunary gain at the expense Of
the owner, is not defensble. These views
were sustained by the majority OF the Judges Of the
General Term of this Court lin Palmer vs. De Witt
2 Sweeney 53O and seem TO be applicable 70 so much
of the rests upon the statements of the defend
Plet to what he reproduced in the defendants
version from memory. The preliminary injunction
should be continued until the further order Of the Court
with $40 costs Of motion to the PLAINTIFF