£8 Fed. Cas. page 6153 (Case No. 4,486) EMEESON ■were owned by the master; that the vessel was bound to Nassau, N. P.; that sbe brought no papers whatever with ber; that the mas- ter had no papers with him relating to the vessel or cargo, and knows nothing about them; and that he knew of the war and of the blockade of Charleston at the time he sailed thence. No evidence contradicting that of the master was given by the two sea- men examined. The testimony affords clear proof that the vessel, with knowledge. of the blockade, was carried out of Charleston at the time alleged, with intent to evade it A decree condemning the vessel and cargo to condemnation and forfeiture must be en- tered. EMERALD ISLE, The. See Case No. 4,270. EMEESON (CAMPBELL v.). See Case No. 2,357. Case No. 4,436. EMERSON V. DAVIES et al. [3 Story, 768; 4 West.. Law J. 261; 8 Law Rep. 270; 13 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 558.]^ Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May Term, 1845. COPT-RlQHT— ISFRINGEMEST — NeW ARRANGEMENT OK CosiBiNATioN — ^Imitation. . Any new and original plan, arrangement or combination of materials, will entitle the au- thor to a copy-right therein, whether the mate- rials tiemselves be new or old. [Cited in Greene v. Bishop, Case No. 5,763; Keene v. Wheatley, Id. 7,644; Lawrence v. Dana, Id. 8,136; Bullinger v. Mackey, Id. 2,127.] . Whosoever by his own skill, labor and judgment writes a new work, may have a copy- right therein, unless it be directly copied or evasively imitated from another work. [Cited in Johnson v. Donaldson, 3 Fed. 24.] . Where the plaintiff wrote an arithmetic, the plan, arrangement, and illustrations of which he claimed to be new, — It was held, that the taking thereof was a violation of his copy- right, although the materials and the several particulars of his plan had existed before in separate forms and in separate works, inas- much as they had never before been united in one combination in the same manner. [Cited in Bullinger v. Mackey, Case No. 2,- 127.] . To constitute a piracy of copy-right, it must be shown that the original work has been either substantially copied, or has been so imi- tated as to be a mere evasion of the copy- right. [Cited in Webb v. Powers, Case No. 17,323; Story V. Holcombe, Id. 13,497; Drury v. Ewing, Id. 4,095; Daly v. Palmer, Id. 3,552; Lawrence v. Dana, Id. 8,136; Banks V. McDivitt, Id. 961; S. S- White Dental Co. v. Sibley, 38 Fed. 753.] Bill in equity [by Frederick Emerson against Charles Davies and Alfred S. Banies], for an infringement of the copy-right in a book called Emerson's North American Arithmetic, ^[Reported by William W. Story, Esq. 13 Hunt, Mer. Slag. 558, and 8 Law Rep. 270, contain only partial reports.] Part First The bill, in substance, stated, that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, and is the author and proprietor of a certain book, entitled "Emerson's First Part The North American Arithmetic, Part First, con- taining Elementary Lessons, by Frederick Em- erson ;" and that on the 28th day of August, in the year 1S29, Ensign Lincoln and Thomas Edmands, both citizens of Massachusetts, and doing business under the firm of Lincoln & Edmands, published the above mentioned book, composed by the plaintiff, who at the same time, for a good and valuable considera- tion, agreed with them, that they should be the exclusive proprietors and publishers of the said work, and that they accordingly did take out a copy-right in the said book, and caused the certificate of the clerk to be printed in the said book, and deposited a copy thereof in the clerk's ofBLce, and took all the measures and steps required by law for securing the said copy-right; and by, and in virtue of the statutes of the United States, they, the said Lincoln & Edmands, and their assigns, have had the lawful and exclusive right of pub- lishing the said book from thetime of the date of the said certificate, until and at the filing of this bill. That on the 17th day of Febru- ary, in the year 1835, by a certain assignment, in writing, of that date, for a good and valu- able consideration, the said Thomas Edmands and one Charles D. Gould, administrator of the said Ensign Lincoln, then deceased, con- veyed and assigned to the plaintiff all their, the said Lincoln & Edmands', right, interest, and property in the said book, and the copy- right thereof, and the plaintiff thereby be- came the sole legal proprietor of such copy- right and ever since the date last afore- said, has been, and now is, such sole pro- prietor, having the sole and exclusive right of printing, pjiblishing, and exposing to sale, and selling copies of the said work as afore- said. And the plaintiff farther says, that after- wards, in the year 1838, he revised and amend- ed his said book, and in the same year took out a copy-right thereof in his own name, he being then and there the author and exclusive proprietor of the said book, and of the said revisions and amendments thereof; which said revised and amended book was entitied "Emerson's First Part The North American Arithmetic. Part First For Young Learners. By PrederickEmerson." That before the pub- lication of the said revised and amended book, he deposited a printed copy of the said titie thereof in the clerk's office of the disti-ict court' of the said district of Massachusetts, and did, within three months from the pub- lication thereof, cause to be delivered a copy of the same book to the said clerk, and did also give information of the copy-right there- of being secured, by causing to be inserted in the several copies of the same, on the page immediately following the titie page thereof, the following words, to wit: "Entered accord- ing to act of congress, in the year 1838, by
