of a "subject of a quasi mechanical nature," and when no new theory of writing is taught in the new edition, than in case of a learned work, such as a "legal and scientific treatise on a subject, varying with the decisions of judicial authorities, or with the increased enlightenment or information of the world." A similar case1 was that in which the pub lisher of Heniy's New and Revised Edition of Jonsse's Royal Standard Pianoforte Tutor, was enjoined though Hemy had pre pared the defendant's work. The court held that facts that showed intent to pass off were that Jousee's book was an almost forgotten one and had not been in the market for twenty years, while Hemy's name was placed more conspicuously than Jousse's on the title page. So the owner of Gent's Comprehensive Instruction Book for the Violin, by J. D. Loder, and of Violin School, by J. D. Loder, had his rights in fringed by J. D. Loder's Celebrated Violin School, edited, revised and enlarged by T. Westrop2. Sometimes the case is one of copying other points of likeness beside the name, making the case one of "dressing up; thus Birthday Scripture Text-book was infringed by Сhilarens Birthday Tc.rt-book", and Royal Calendar by Imperial Calendar, con taining the same lists4. The man who stole the most of the material of the year book of the National Liberal Club and called his book the Liberal and Radical Year Book, be cause of his lack of equity could not have an injunction against the Liberal Year Book, registered five days after his5. The publish•Metzler v. Wood, 38 L. T. N. S. 541. 'Hutchings v. Sheard, 1881, W. N. 20. This was also a copyright case, as part of plaintiff's work was protected. "Mack v. Fetter, 20 W. R. 964. 'Longman v. Winchester, 16 Ves. 276. Talbot v. Judges, 3 T. L. R. 398. •Estes v. Williams, 21 Fed. 189; Estes v. Leslie, 27 Fed. 22, 29 Fed. 91; Estes v. Worthine ton. 22 Fed. 223, 30 Fed. 465, 31 Fed. 154; Estes •v. Beiford, 30 Off. Gaz. 99.
ers of Chatterbox won a number of cases", in which the question of accumulated resem blances was involved. In these cases the name, style, and arrangement of the plain tiff's juvenile publication had been copied and the plaintiff was given redress. Of course, to advertise books as written or revised by authors, which were not writ ten or revised by them, is a fraud which the courts frown upon7. A peculiar case was that in which the purchaser of the exclusive right to publish articles written by one of the survivors of the terrible Mont Peleé disas ter restrained another magazine publisher from displaying on the cover the survivor's name, as author of an article the defendant printed written from a newspaper interview with the survivor8. The fact that one publisher issued a Maude Adams Calendar decorated with pic tures of the actress does not prevent an other from issuing a calendar of similar char acter, but very dissimilar in appearance*. However, the publishers of Gruber's Hagcrstown Almanac had injunction against another publisher who imitated their first page closely and their last page exactly10.. The name of a song has also been pro tected. Mme. Anna Thillon sang a song, en titled "Minnie," at Julien's Concerts, and her publisher was given an injunction against another publisher, who issued the same mel ody with the same name, representing it as sung by the same person, but using words different from those used by her11. In a second case he had injunction against the publisher of "Minnie, Dear Minnie12. Dramatic compositions have received like 'Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meri. 20 (1816); Besant v. Moffat, 84 L. T. Jour. 152; Clemens v. Such Dig. 429. •Leslie i'. Walker, 62 Pub. Wkly. 16. "Frohman v. Stokes, 63 Pub. Wkly. 946. "Robertson v. Berry, 50 Md. 591. See Spottiswoode v. Clarke, ю Jur. 1043. "Chappell v. Sheard, 2 K. & J. 117. "Chappell 7p. Davidson, 2 K. & J. 123.
