fiATE .01' CONNEC'1!IOUT t. GOULD·
. STATE OF CoNNECTICUT t1. GOULD
(Olt'/luit (Jout't, N. D. New York.
March 19, 1888.)
CoPYRIGHT-STATE REPORTs-CONNECTICUT DEOISIOlirS.
The act of March 22, 1882; (Acts Gen. Assem. Conn.,) directing the reporter W publish the decisions of the supreme court of errors, andco).>yright the vol· umes. does not prohibit anyone else from ).>ublishing the opimons separately or collectively, but restricts the exclusive light of publication to the Reporu compiled and edited by the reporter.
E. EUery 4nder8Dn. for complainant. N. a..MoaJC, defendants.
W AI.LACE, J. The act of the general assembly olthe state ofConneeticnt(approved March 22,1882) creating the officl'l ofreporter ju.. dicialdecisions:of the supreme court of errors, fixing his salary, and di.. recting those decisions to be'pUblished in volumes lInder the supervision. of the comptroller. and the several volumes copyrighted fortha benefit oftha of the state;, dqes not forbid expressly or by implication the publicl),tion of the opinions of the court, separately or collectively, by any person who chooses to use them, but by reasonable construction restricts the exclusive right of publication to the Reports compiled and edited by the officer who is to receive a salary for the work. The statute undoubtedly contemplates that the Reports which are to be published will be prepared for publication in the usual and convenient form oflaw reports, containing an index and appropriate syllabi accompanying the opinions, which, as the work ofthe reporter, would be the unquestioned and familiar subject of copyright. If it had been the object of the statute to preventthe publication of the judicial decisions of the colirt, otto regulate tbe mode ofpromulgating them, so that they should have uo publicity except in-the desiguated form of official Reports, that iutention could have been', easily manifested by apt language so as to remO\Te all dQlibtjand in view of the serious ql,lestion often debated, but never authoritatively decided by the courts of this country, whether such opinions can be copyrighted by the state, it would seem that the statute would have been so framed as to leave no doubt of the legislative will, psuch an intention had been entertained. THe opinion has been expressed in se\Teral adjudications, by judges whose opinions are .entitled to .the highest respect. 'that .the judicial decisions. of the courtaare not the subject of qopyright, but should be regarded as public property, to be 'freely published by anyone who may choose to publish them. This policy which, it is view has been tll.keh upon· consideratioDs of said, demand, in a country where every persdn 'is presumed and required .to know the law, that the fullest and earliest opportunity of access toihe expositions ofthejudicialtribunals should be afforded to aU. . No .statute should be interpteted, tiriless the language used adinits of no otHer interpretation, to p'ress beyond the certain confinesof}egislative power,
On bill for injunction.
FEDERAL REPORTER. .
(U. S. v. OJombs, 12 Pet. 72,) and in obedience to this rule the courts have almost uniformly.intetpreted statutes closely resembling the present so as to restrict the copyright to the c()mpleted volume. Davidson v. Wheelock, 27 Fed. Rep. 61; Banks v. Publishing Co., ld. 50; Banks v. Manchester, 23 Fed. Nash v. Lathrop, 142 29,6 N. Rep. 559. The case of Gould v. Banks,53 Conn. 415, 2 Atl., Rep. 886, js relied upon by the complainant. The opinion in that case undoubtedlyasserts the right of the state to copyright the opinions, and interprets the statute as designed to effectuate that right. The observations upon this point, however, were unnecessary to the decision of the case before the court, which was whether a mandamus should be granted to compel the reporter to furnish copies of the opinions whic}1 he was preparing for publication, when the writ would operate to deprive theauthorizedpublishers for the state of the benefit of their contract with the state;' 'this sufficiently' appears fromt.he following language ofthe opinion: 14 If, therefore, we should now direct the reporter to funish copies of the opinions to the petitioners that they may sell them to the public in advance for their own profit, we should" in effect, advise the state to a orea'Ch of contract." . Atfthe defendants have not pirated any 'of the matter originally prepared by the reporter, the motion Jor 'an injunction is denied.
(Girouit Gourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 10, 1887.)
PATBNTl:l FOR INvENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-COMPOSITE PAVEMENTS.
. Letters patent 269,480 were granted for an improvement in composftepavements formed with circular, square, or analogous depressions, equal or nearly equal in diameter in' each direction, and with even or level marA'in on the pavemen,t surface, adapted to afford an additional hold to the feet, and prevent slipping. Held, to possess patentable novelty, and to be infringed by a pavement made of slag, cement. and a concrete of gravel and cement w'itha top dressing of slag and cement, and finished with a roller which made impressions upon the surface.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent. This is a suit brought against the American Artificial Stone Pavement Company for infringing letters patent No. 269,480, granted December 19, 1882, to Peter Stuart, of Edinburgh, Scotland, for an improvElrnent in composite pavements. The improvement is especially, though not exclusively, for application to sidewalks; and it consists in the formation in surface of pavements of depressions of such a character that in stepping thereon the pressure of the feet will expel the air, causing a partial vacuum, which, supplementing the mechanical effect of the l'oughenedsurfa:ce, will operate to afford an additional hold to the feet
" l:Reportedby C. J3erkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.