Alleged Infringement of Copyright.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 447, 29 April 1890, Page 3

Alleged Infringement of Copyright.

FIRST ONSLAUGHT—THE PUBLISHER GETS WORSTED. THE HERALD TRIUMPHS. Thebe was a good attendance at the RM. Court yesterday when there was heard the first of three informations against Hamilton Thomas Jones, printer and publisher of the Gisborne Standard, the information having been laid by Mr William Harrington Atack, manager of the Press Association. Mr Booth, R.M., was on the Bench. Mr Gully was to have come up from Wellington, but was seized with la grippe, and the case was entrusted to Mr Nolan, and with him appeared Mr Chrisp, while Mr Young, a clever clerk in the service of Messrs Bell, Gully, and Izard, came up from Wellington to assist in the case. The defendant was unfortunate in its being found at the last moment that Mr W. L. Rees was too ill to appear in the case, but it was taken up by Mr Lincoln Rees. The Herald staff was well represented in Court, the proprietor and six other members of the staff being visible, and the only witness (omitting informant and defendant) was one of the staff.

After the information had been read Ur Rees submitted that as it was not sat up by the prosecution that any offence had been wilfully committed, the case must be dismissed. He quoted Regina v. Conrad, 6 N.Z. LB., S.C., which distinctly stated that the case could not stand, with the omission of the word wilful, and that case was on all fours with the present. Mr Nolan stated that the information was laid under section 38 of the Electric Lines Act. Mr Bees argued that then there could be no offence disclosed, and he read section 41 of the Act. Mr Nolan urged that that was retrospective. . . The Bench overruled Mr Bees’ objection,

and also an objection that the time the telegram received had not been stated, and a further point that three distinct offences had been alleged, that the telegram was an “extract from,” “or intelligence contained,” “ or the substance of" a cablegram received, etc. Mr Mees then urged that the information alluded to a cablegram, while the Act made no reference to such a thing. His Worship paid “ a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” and that in common parlance cablegram was accepted as meaning telegram. Mr Nolan, fgr the prosecution, said the cablegram had been received by Mr Atack, and the substance of it been published in the Standard about three hours before the copyright had expired. He denied that the Preu Association was a huge monopoly, as had been stated. The expenses, he said, were about £4OOO a year, and the Standard had been taking advantage of the wires without contributing to that cost. In the case against Baldwin it had been decided that the Association must prosecute, and in a libel action it had been decided that the Association was responsible, on account of the information having been sent to the newspapers by that body. There was no doubt in this case that the telegram had been received by Mr Atack, and by him been published in the Wellington papers. Ha then called— W. H. Atack, who deposed: Was secretary tor the United Preu Association at Wellington, and as such received all telegrams forwarded to that Association, aud published them in the various papers. (Telegram March 31 produced, received from Sydney), Had published it in the Wellington Evening Post, and a number of other papers. The telegram published in the Standard was the ■ubstanoa of that. Knew the paper named the Gisborne Standard, none of the proprietors ■f which were to bis knowledge, members of the Association; neither was the defendant

Mr Jones, whom he had given no permission to publish the message. (Standard, April 1, produced). The telegram was piaotically the came. Witness was the person who should be authorised to give consent to persons to publish. Telegrams coming from the Association were headed by Electric Telegraph— Copyright. He published the telegrams. To Mr Bees: The Association was practically an ordinary registered company, but was a co-operative concern. He said be published the telegram in the Wellington Post, but he did not own that paper. Mr Bees: How did you publish it ? Witness; I sent it to them for publication—in fact I do the same with the Post as I do with the others. A. L. Muir deposed he was on the staff of the Herald, and knew the Standard, of which the Herald got copies. He believed Mr H. T. Jones was editor. U This point was admitted by the defence. Mr Alack, recalled by Mr Bees : Had also supplied messages to the Auckland Star aud Auckland Herald. Saw at the top Per Press Auociation—Electric telegraph—copyright. The ume of receipt was not there. Could not produce the certificate of the incorporation of the Company, though he had the Articles of Association. To Mr Nolan : The telegram in the Star was the same. Mr Bees pointed out that the telegram did not have the copyright over it in the paper in which it had been published, the Post. Witness said that appeared under the main heading of cables. Mr Bees pointed out that could not be the ease, as matter which was not telegraphic intervened, and it was completely separated from the first matter. Witness said rules did separate the telegrams, but if they had to put the time over each one the telegrams would be all split up—it was jut a matter of newspaper usage. Mr Bees said they bad to deal with law there, and not newspaper usage. The defendant was then called and deposed

that be had received the telegram trqm the Standard'* correspondent in Auckland. The telegram was put in, but Mr Nolan objected to it unless the name were attached. Legal argument ensued, and Hie Worship ruled that the name must be given. The name, which had been torn ofi, waa then allowed to be gummed on again, being that of Mr W. J. Gaddi*. W uneaa continued: The instruction* to Mr Geddis wen that he waa to oae hi* own discretion, and the telegram not being copyrighted ba had sent it in the ordinary course. He did not know Mi Gaddi* personally, but knew him by repute to be a very clever journalist. To Mr Nolan: Mr Gaddis was sub- . editor of the Star. He (witness) knew the message waa not copyright, because anyone could tell that by reading the Act. Did not know when the telegram was published whether or not it waa copyrighted, bnt Mr Geddia was quite able to see that. Had looked up the master after the Information had been laid against him, and had obtained advice on it, and waa still clearly of opinion that there h«d been no infringement. Ths

Act was plain euougn auuut Mr Reea quoted the colonial Act to show that there had been no infringement and a case decided under the Eaglisn Act to show that to give protection the copyright provi* sions must be properly fulfilled, and he further contended that there was nothing to show that the Association was a properly registered company. He also oombatMd Mr Nolan's statement that the Association was not a monopoly, and said it had been so stigmatised when the Act had been brought in. Mr Nolan contended that whether or not the newspapers had properly headed the messages did not matter. It was the duty of the Standard to have been assured upon the point aa to what time the message had been received before republishing it. U was admitted 'hat had not boon done. If ha (Mr Nolan) received a telegram from outside the colony and chose to give it to the Standard or ths Herald to publish, that did . not privilege any other paper to publish it without bis permission. Mr Ataok had sworn that ho was the person authorised, by the Association to receive telegrams, and this had been published without his permission. Iho argument as to Mr Atack getting authority most fail, bo•ansa the section of the Act dealt entirely with the noeivor. The defendant was perlastly aware that the Standard was not doing sight in publishing those telegrams, but it persisted is doing so even up tc the present. & toiler of ths Standard had been repaatedly waned, bat had taken as aotioe of

have first obtained permission from the Association or its authorised agents. He would therefore give judgment against the defendant for £l. In the costs Mr Atack's expenses were allowed. Mr Bees gave notice of appeal. His Worship asked whether the other two cases would be allowed to stand over until the appeal had been decided, and it was subsequently decided that they should be adjourned until ten this morning.