SNOW tI. MAST.
The law protecting the rights of authors in their compositions, literary and musical, where they have not been dedicated to the public, or published with the author's consent, is well established. The principles announced by this court in Goldmark v. Kreling, 11 Sawy. 215, 25 I!'ed. 349; Henderson v. Tompkins, 60 Fed. 764; and in Drone on Copyrights, §§ 97, 121,383, 526,-are conclusive in favor of complainant's right to a decree, with costs. Let a decree be so entered.
SNOW v. MAST et al (Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D. August 4, 1894.)
COPYRIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPH AND FORFEITURES. EQUITY JURISDICTION SUIT FOR PENALTIES
Complainant filed a bill to reeover penalties and enforce forfeitures, under Rev. St. §§ 4963, 4965, for infringement of copyright on a photograph, and also prayed an injunction. and that defendants be required particularly to answer how many copies they had sold. HeIdi, that there was an adequate remedy by action at law, and equity had DO jurisdiction. Under Rev. St. § 860, an alleged infring·!r of a copyright on a photograph cannot be required, by answer or otherwise, to disclose any fact upon which a claim against him for penalties and forfeitures accruing under Rev. St. §§ 4963,4965, may depend.
& Kirkpatrick for infringement of copyrights of photographs. Wood & Boyd, for complainant. Keifer & Keifer, for respondents.
This was a bill in equity by Blanche L. Snow against Mast, Crowell
SAGE, District Judge (orally). The bill is for an injunction aJ}.d account It is founded upon the alleged infringement by defendants of three copyrights of photographs, with reference to each of which the complainant seeks to recover penalties for the vio· lation of sections 4963, 4965, Rev. St. U. S. The complainant prays for an injunction, and that the defendants appear and answer all the averments of the bill,-particularly, how many copies of each of said eopyrighted photographs they have sold, and the number they have on that they may be ordered and decreed to render an account of the copies that they have sold, or in any wise disposed of, together with those on hand or under their control; also, that they may be ordered to surrender and deliver up the copies on hand or under their control, and the plates from which they were made, to an officer of the court, to be sold or destroyed, and that they may be ordered to pay into court, to be distributed according to law, the damages established by law as the penalty for their aforesaid unlawful acts and doings, and for other relief. The defendants de· mur to the bill generally for want of equity, and that the bill is multifarious, and for other reasons. The demurrer will be sustained, and the bill dismissed. The com· plainant has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, by an action. This consideration, of itself, disposes of the bill, under sec·
ing party, nor any,disc()very or eVidence obtained from him, whetl:l.er as a party or witness,by means of a judicial proceeding in 'this or any foreign shall be given in evidence, or in any manner used against him W'his property or estate, in any court of the United States, in any criminal proceeding, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture. The defendants cannot be required to make disclosure, by answer or otherwise, of any fact upon which the claim against them may depend, nor can they be required to produce any books or papers which would subject them to a penalty. Johnson v. Donaldson, 3 Fed. 22. Even in a civil action for the recovery of a penalty, the defendant is exempt from answering specifically .the allegations of the petition. The proper answer, in such a case, is that he is not guilty of the wrongs charged against him. It is not necessary to consider any of the other grounds upon which the demurrer is based. There is no case in equity against the defendants. The bill will be dismissed at the complainant's cost.
THE RAVENSDALE. ,ANDERSON v. THE RAVENSDALE et aL (District Court, S. D. New York. March 2, 1894.)
SHIPPING-PERSONAL INJURy-HoISTING, CARGO-NEGIlIGENCE-FELLOW SERVAN1'S.
In addition to this"section 860, Id., proVides that no plead-
S.,and under the general rule as to equity juris-
Where the libelant a longshoreman, was injured by the fall of a draft of boards which were being hoisted aboard a steamer, and the evidence showed that the cause of 'the accident· was the imprOper fastening of the draft, so that the -draft did not tauten as it should have done when the draft went up, held, that.it was immaterial by whose fault this occurred, ,since it was certa1nly done, by one of the, several workmen. engaged in the same common employment, which would prevent any recovery ,by the libelant.
This was a libel to recover damages for personal injuries,fil,ed by Saverin A. Anderson against the steamer Ravensdale and Roperts Bros., stevedores, who were loading said steamer. Ryland & Zabriskie, for libelant. QOIlvers .& Kirlin, for ;the Ravensdale. Ch;\rIe,s O. for Roberts Bros. lJRQWN,District Judge. On the 16th of February, 1891, while the lighter Georgia Pine was lying alongside the steamer Ravensdale, at the Atlantic basin, and delivering a cargo of boards to the steaJ;ller, the libelant, who was captain of the lighter, and was asSli&ting a gang. of men employed by Roberts Bros., stevedores, in hoisting the boards upon the steamer, was severely injured by the fall of a part of one ;of the drafts, just before it was hauled over the steamer's rail. One of the vertibrae of his back was dislocated, causing incurable paralysis of both the lower 'limbs. The above