Alleged Infringement of Copyright.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 448, 1 May 1890, Page 2

Alleged Infringement of Copyright.

THE REMAINING CASES. At 10 on Tuesday morning the second of the informations laid against Hamilton Thomas Jones, by William Harrington Atack (manager of the Press Association), was called on. Messrs Nolan and Chrisp appeared for the Association, while Mr W. L. Rees was so disgusted with the decision given on the previous day that he rose from his sickbed to appear for the defendant (Mr Jones). With him Mr Lincoln Rees also appeared. The information having been read, Mr Rees said that His Worship would be aware that there were three cases, and that the two cases yet to be taken were practically the same as the first. His learned friend had said there might bn some little difference, but they were practically the same. He therefore proposed to the Court that the appeal should go on on the one case, and that a case should be carefully stated. The matter was one of

great importance to newspapers, and of coarse also to the colony, and probably the outcome would result in further legislation being asked tor. No doubt if the appeal went against the Association they would ask for fresh legislation, and ha had no doubt they would require it before they could sustain a case of that kind. In the meantime he suggested that a case for appeal ba brought and settled between the parties, eo that all the points might be fairly argued, and loss of time and the burden of further expense be avoided, the other cases being adjourned and the defendant agreeing toplead guilty and submit to the fine of the Court it the appeal went against him. The case was of far more importance than one that was merely to be decided on technical points—it was one of great public interest, because there was the far more important point as to whether such a monopoly was the property of the Association. Taking the other cases then would not advance rhe matter at all, because the decision of the Court of Appeal must hold good in all the cases. Mr Nolan quite agreed with his learned friend as to the public importance of the oases, and the prosecution was solely on that ground, and not for the purpose of persecuting the Standard, but there were new pointe in the other cases which would probably have some effect with the Court of Appeal. In the second case, in connection with the telegram regarding the Berlin scandal, the telegram was addressed to Mr Ataok himself, and not as in the first case to the Press Association. Mr Rees : Then the inf ormation is wrong ; it alludes to Mr Ataok as manager of the Association. Mr Nolan : That is only a description. Mr Roes said it did not matter—ho would not interrupt Mr Nolan. Mr Nolan said there was another point that in this case the division he proposed to put in was properly headed, and the telegram itself was headed off. If Mr Rees were willing to allow these things to go into the appeal case he had no objection to the cases being adjourned. They wanted to get at the defendant to see if they could not prevent these telegrams being taken. Mr Roes: I would not like to press anything which would tend to weaken the case on the other side. I will allow them every advantage. If therefore they like to take this case to appeal as well as the other they can do so. I will consent to both cases being taken to appeal. Mr Nolan: Will you raise any objection as to the receiver of the telegram ’ Mr Rees said he did not think he could restrict himself in the matter, because he might be found fault with for consenting to anything that would cause useless litigation. The second case could not make the slightest difference, because there were two points which he felt sure would be fatal without going into the other points. If the adjournment were not consented to then the Court must take the responsibility of being the cause of unnecessary litigation and expense, and if the prosecution wished to cause litigation they must stand the consequences. He might say without egotism no man had had more cases in which the erroneous decisions of magistrates had been set aside than he had—in fact in Auckland his success in that respect in regard to the Justices’ decisions had he m the cause of much amusement, though it was perhaps hardly a matter for amusement—and from his experience in that branch of the profession he could say that to his mind the law in this case was so plain that there could be no doubt the appeal would be in favor of the defendant. The omission in regard to the certificate of incorporation, the omissions in every one of the informations, could not be supplied by evidence, nor could it be supplied by the Courts. If the Association would persist in forcing the thing on, irrespective of the appeal, then he would simply ask that it be fought over again and see whether they would get a verdict on the next case! Mr Nolan said the position in the second case was much clearer than that of the one previously heard. He had intended taking this case first, but when the information had been read, he was not attending. If they could agree to include the points raised, he would allow every room for appeal. Mr Rees : Oh, no, if the case goes on it must go regularly through its course. Mr Rees then asked that the Court postpone the hearing of these cases on the ground that by going on it would put the parties to needless cost both in this Court and the other, and it would not be right for the Court to. do that. By such means alfpoor man might be forced to give in, and thus be denied justice. All that could be asked for was that if a monopoly existed it should be sustained by the Court, but he objected to being harassed in this way; one case was sufficient at a time. He would also point out that the Act provided for a first offence and subsequent offences, and the Court could not now deal with alleged subsequent offences. His Worship : No, I cannot. Mr Nolan said hs would consent to the postponements it Mr Bees agreed to forego the pointe as to the heading of the telegram and admit that they had been addressed to the plaintiff himself, Mr Raes: I could not consent to that; if ] did I would be consenting to a fact whioh dost not exist, Mr Nolan : Well, we will have to go on. Mr Rees: The Court has not the slightest jurisdiction in the matter—that point hat been decided over and over again. My learned friend, with full knowledge of that, is pressing the Court to go on with the case. The Court has nn jurisdiction. Mr Nolan : How do you make that out ? Mr Rees : Thera has been no offence alleged. Mr Nolan: Yesterday the Court field there was. Mr Rees : There, your Worship, he throws the responsibility upon the Court 1 Mr Nolan: I hold now there was an offence, Mr Rees: I say no Court in the world will hold there was an offence. However, I don’t want to go back. I ask the Court whether it will not postpone this case. No harm can be done. It will not necessitate any gentleman Coming from Wellington. Hie Worship: I would be very much inclined |o postpone these oases. Mr Rees agreed to meet the prosecution in

any way in regard to Mt Ataok’s evidence. They did not want to compel Mr Atack to come back to Gisborne. But supposing the case went on, and he (Mr Bscs) produced oases which clearly proved the decision in the first case to be wrong, a nice position the Bench would ba in I Hie Worship: Tig. It was then agreed that Mr Atsok's evidence should be taken, and the cue be allowed io rest there until after the appeal had been decided, Mr Ataok was then called and deposed that he was Secretary of the Press Association. Mr Bees objected to that evidence. There was nothing known to the law as an Association not incorporated under the Act. Mr Nolan (to His Worship): It doesn’t matter; you needn’t, take that down. . (On the previous day Mr Booth had given the ruling that there was no necessity to prove this important point.] Witness continued: He himself had received the telegram produced, on the 81st March, from outside the Colony, It was delivered to him by the Telegraph Depart* Mehl,

Mr Bees : The Telegraph Department could not do that. Well, one of the messengers. He (witness) had forwarded a copy of it to a paper called the Poverty Bay Herald (paper produced). Mr Rees: That is not evidence; you must have the telegram. Mr Nolan : The telegram is in. Mr Rees : How do you connect that?— that (the Herald) is a printed paper. Mr Nolan : Never mind; I put iu a copy of the Poverty Buy Herald. Mr Rees : What purpose is this intended for?

Mr Nolan : For the purpose of showing publication. Mr Rees : Then I object at once. That is clearly no publication. Mr Nolan : Why ?

Mr Rees said section 38 of the Act very clearly showed that. Assuming that Mr Atack bad received the telegram produced, then he must publish that telegram himself. It was section 39 which would apply to the case set up now. and the two sections dealt with entirely distinct off nces. Mr Rees went on to explain that if Mr Atack received the telegram he himself must publish it, and it was not sufficient for him to hand it to a newspaper of which he was not the publisher. The question now was that Mr Atack alleged that he supplied this news to the Poverty Biy Herald. If that was so then the telegram must be produced. Mr Nolan said lhe objections anticipated his evidence. He merely put the paper in Mr Atack’s hand, and asked him if he did publish lhe telegram. Mr Rees said he could not publish in the Herald—lhe name of the publisher appeared on lhe imprint. Mr Nolan said that point would bs decided in the appeal.

Witness continued: Ha knew the Poverty Bay Standard [Gisborne Standard]. The telegram which had appeared in that paper re the Berlin scandal was lhe same. He had given no permission for it to be so published. To Mr Rees : Did you give the Poverty Bay Herald permission to publish this telegram 1

Witness: Yes, they had permission. Did you give permission to publish any telegram ?

Witness: That one especially ? Mr Rees : Yes, that one especially ? If you mean did I on the particular day give them permission, of course I did not. They got permission to publish all telegrams. Then you gave general permission ? I suppose you put it that way—yes. I did not ask you what you supposed. Did you or did you not give permission’ They had general permission. Mr Rees : Answer my question. Witness : I am answering it. Did you, Mr Atack, give the Harald permission to publish that telegram ? Yes, certainly. Mr Rees here picked up the Poverty Bay Herald and exclaimed “ Yes, I thought so,” and then to the great amusement of those in Court, explained that while Mr Atack was trying to prove that he bad personally received the telegram and had supplied the information, the heading showed clearly that it had been supplied by the so oallad Press Association, Mr Rees (handing the paper, with the telegram headed per Press Association): Just look who gave permission ? Witness: This (referring to the telegram heading) is the way prescribed by the Act. Do you see that is headed per Press Association?—Yes. Are you the Press Association ?—I am the manager of it. Are you the Frees Association ?—I am the manager of it. I asked you if you were the Press Association ’—No. It would have been enough if you had said that at first. Now, what'is the time that telegram was received (handing witness the telegram put iu)! Witness: It you let me look at that paper (Herald) I will tell you. Mr Rees : Never mind the paper. Witness (referring to the message) : It bears nothing.

Mr Rees referred witness to a cypher mark.

Witness: You are running your head against these figures. Mr Rees : That telegram does not show the time?—No. Mr Rees : Then—— Witness : This is not the original telegram—it has nothing to do with it. Then how do you know what time it was received ?—I know ths time it was delivered to us. Mr Rees : What time was it delivered ? Witness : If you show me that paper—— Mr Bees : No, I wont. Witness : That paper was pnt in. I put the time on it on the printed copy of the telegram. Mr Rees (pointing to the time in the Herald): You put this time here ? Witness: That is the time it was received !—yes. Did you put that time there (in ths Herald) ? Witness: I sm not going to be entrapped, Mr Rees—— Mr Rees: You are here to tell the truth ; answer my questions, or I will ask the Magistrate to commit you for contempt. You must have no finessing here, Mr Atack. Witness: This is a copy of the telegram. Where is the telegram ?—The Poverty Bay Herald has got it. Well let them produce it. Is the Press Association an incorporated company?—Yes, Well, Mr Nolan, where is the certificate of incorporation ? Mr Nolan : I'm aura I don’t know—l bars □o idea.

Mr Rees: This is irregular altogether. The evidence ought to be here.

Mr Rees, continuing, said the telegram itself should bear the time. Section 40 stipulated that the message should be printed with the heading “By electric telegraph copyright,” etc., but the telegram itself must bear the date aud hour of receipt. Did you receive this telegram, or the Association ? Witness : I received it. Do you publish any paper or other printed matter?—No. Does the Association ?—No.

Mr Rees then sat down, and Mr Young (a law student who was assisting the prosecution) was holding a eotto voce conversation with the witness while be remained iu the box.

Mr Reee then interrupted: I don't know what that young gentleman is doing there talking to the witness—it is a highly improper proceeding. [This sort of thing bad been allowed on the previous day.] His Worship: Yes, it is not altogether right.

Mr Young apologised to the Court and then resumed his seat.

His Worship : Hava yon any questions to ask, Mr Nolan ?—No, your Worship. In reply to Mr Nolan as to whether the defence would admit that Mr Jones was editor of the Standard, Mr Rees said of course they would admit his liability in that respect—the defence would give every facility so far as matters of fact were concerned.

Mr Nolan : Well, we will leave the case at that; and I have no doubt my learned friend and I can agree as to the statement of a oaae for appeal. His Worship then adjourned the oaee until after the appeal has been decided, Mr Nolan: I will withdraw the third base altogether,

Mr Bees: I! that it withdrawn I will aak for costs.

Mr Nolan demurred to costs being allowed, Mr Rees : Well, better let it stand os it la. Your Worship will see that it is far better for every particle of this evidence to be g it. His Worship: Exactly; I think I shall adj iurn it.

Mr Nolan said they wanted to avoid bringing Mr Atack back from Wellington. Mr Rees repeated that every allowance would be made the prosecution in that respect. The defence would admit all the formal evidence; all the evidence Mr Atack had given io both oases could be given. It waa then, with Mr Booth’s approval, agreed that connsei should prepare otatemant of a case to be taken to the Appeal Court, and the third case was also adjourned.