PIRACY OF TELEGRAMS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1488, 22 November 1878, Page 3

PIRACY OF TELEGRAMS.

[By Telegraph.] Wellington, November 21. At the Court of Appeal to-day, the case Holt and McCarthy against Webb, for piracy of telegrams, came on for argument on a demurrer by defendant to plaintiffs’ declaration. The demurrer hud been removed by consent from the Court in Banco. Tho Attorney-General appeared in support of the demurrer; Messrs Travers and Edwards for the Agency. The points for argument were : —That there was no equity entiHing plaintiffs to an injunction or to any other equitable relief; that the reprinting from any newspaper of news published in such newspaper is not an actionable wrong ; that there is no copyright in news published in a newspaper. The Attorney-General contended that the right to restrict publication exists solely in England by statute ; that there is no common law right in articles once published; that if telegrams wore held to bo copyright, so would all other matter in a newspaper. In support of his argument Mr Stout cited authorities. Tho Melbourne “ Argus ” cases, on which the other side might rely, would not apply here, because the “ Argus ” was registered under a clause in a Victorian, and not in an English Act, which extended the protection of copyright to newspapers. Mr Travers said if one newspaper had taken proceedings against another, then the question of copyright might have arisen : but it did not arise in this case. But, supposing it did arise, he should say that Statute law only restricted the c ommon law. It did not create rights, but. merely regulated those which existed at common law, and if there was no Statute in New Zealand then the common law operated. However, his contention was, that plaintiffs had a right of property in these telegrams, just as a merchant hud a right of property in merchandise, and that anyone publishing tho telegrams without tho license of the Press Agency, infringed the law, and became liable to plaintiffs. Mr Edwards followed on the same side. Within the moaning of the Act a newspaper was a book, and the authors of these telegrams hold in law the same redress against piracy as any author of a book had against persons who published it for, the/ o wn profit without reference fo Ifie author. He also eoutoiKiod that, in the absence of statute law, common law must operate. Mr Stout in reply said, admitting a newspaper was a book, the remedy was not an injunction, but a uit for damages after publication. The Court took time to consider its decision.