nected with wireless telegraphy by the socalled DeForest system; and certain wireless telegraph stations on the Atlantic Coast in the State of New Jersey and elsewhere, the exact location of which is to the complainant unknown, which are now used and occupied by one or more of said defendants for purposes connected with wireless telegraphy by the socalled DeForest system. Trenton, New Jersey, April 20, 1907, yours, etc. Walter Althouse by James A. Allen and Roger Foster, his attorneys, solicitors and counsel, 35 Wall St., New York.

To all whom it may concern and to Joseph McDermott, clerk of Monmouth County, New Jersey.

FORM XXX.-ANSWER TO BILL FOR INJUNCTION.

[District] Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

JOHN HALFORD AND RICHARD DAVIS

against

HENRY HAWES.

The answer of the above-named defendant to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiffs.

In answer to the said bill, I, Henry Hawes, say as follows:

1. I admit that I was on the first day of June, 1864, seized in feesimple of the premises in the first paragraph of the said bill mentioned. And I admit that the indenture in the said first paragraph of the said bill mentioned was of such date, and made between such parties as in the first said paragraph of the said bill alleged, and that the same was executed by me. I believe that the said indenture was not executed by Henry Baker in the said bill mentioned. I believe that the said indenture was of or to the purport and effect in the said first paragraph of the said bill in that behalf set forth; but for my greater certainty I crave to refer to the same when produced to this Honorable Court.

2. I do not know and cannot set forth as to my belief or otherwise, whether the said Henry Baker died on the seventh day of May, 1867, or when he died; or whether or not having by his will and whether or not dated the tenth day of January, 1867, or of what other date, devised to the plaintiffs and their heirs, all estates vested in him by way of mortgage, or appointed the plaintiffs to be his executors; nor whether the said will was or was not on the first day of July, 1867, or when, in fact, proved by the plaintiffs in the Surrogate's Court for the city and county of New York, or how otherwise; nor whether the said plaintiffs thereby or in fact became, nor whether they now are, the legal personal representatives of the said Henry Baker; but I have no reason to doubt that the facts are as in that behalf alleged in the said bill.

3. The said Henry Baker was a bachelor, without any near relations,

and for many years previously to the year 1864, and thenceforward to his death, he suffered from continual ill-health and infirmity. My mother, Sarah Hawes, was in the service of the said Henry Baker as housekeeper from the year 1855 down to the time of the death of the said Henry Baker, and was in continual attendance upon him; and the said Henry Baker frequently expressed to my said mother his gratitude for her attention to his comfort in that his illness.

4. I attained my age of twenty-one years in the year 1864. In the early part of that year my said mother applied to the said Henry Baker to advance me the sum of one thousand dollars to enable me to enter business, which he agreed to do on having the repayment thereof with interest secured by the said indenture of the first day of June, 1864.

5. In the month of May, 1864, the said Henry Baker wrote, signed and sent to me a letter bearing no date, containing the words and figures following (that is to say): "All is arranged about the security you are to give me. I hope I shall never have occasion to enforce it; and that nothing will compel me to change my intention of rewarding your mother and yourself for her long and faithful services to me,'-as by such letter when produced will appear.

6. I have never made any payments whatsoever on account of interest due on the said indenture, and I was never called upon to pay interest thereon by the said Henry Baker in his lifetime.

7. My said mother died on the twenty-seventh day of December, 1867. 8. Under the circumstances hereinbefore appearing I submit that nothing is due on the said indenture from me to the plaintiffs, whether as such alleged personal representatives or otherwise, but I admit that nothing has ever been paid on account of the principal money secured thereby.

9. I do not know, and cannot set forth, as to my belief or otherwise, whether the plaintiffs did on the seventh day of April, 1873, discover, but I admit that it is the fact, that I intend to pull down the said house in the said bill mentioned, and that I have advertised the bricks composing the same to be sold as building materials. I deny that it is true that I have entered into a contract with John Smithers or with any other person for the execution of the work of pulling down the same.

10. I admit that if the said house be pulled down, the said premises would be insufficient security for the sum of one thousand dollars with interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum from the first day of June, 1864. But I submit that I have a right to pull down the said house, and to sell the bricks composing the same as building materials, and that the injunction awarded against me by this Honorable Court on the sixteenth day of April, 1873, ought to be dissolved, and that the said bill ought to be dismissed with costs.

HENRY HAWES.

ROBERT JONES,

Solicitor for Henry Hawes,

111 Broadway, New York.

DEFENDANT'S OATH TO ANSWER.

STATE OF NEW YORK,

City and County of New York, SS.

Southern District of New York.

Henry Hawes, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the abovenamed defendant. So much of the foregoing answer as concerns my own acts and deeds is true to the best of my own knowledge; and so much thereof as concerns the acts or deeds of any other person or persons, I believe to be true.

Sworn to before me this 20th day of July, 1875.

[SEAL.]

HENRY HAWES.

SYLVANUS BROWN,

Notary Public, New York County.

FORM XXXI.—ANSWER IN COPYRIGHT SUIT IN EQUITY. [District] Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY,

The answer of the American Law Book Company, the above-named defendant, to the bill of complaint exhibited against it by the above-named complainant.

This defendant now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to itself all and all manner of benefits and advantages of exception which may be had or taken to the many errors, uncertainties, imperfections and insufficiencies in the complainant's said bill of complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so much or such parts thereof as this defendant is advised that it is material or necessary for it to make answer unto, answering, says:

1. Defendant admits that complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with its principal office and place of business at the village of Northport, Long Island, and also admits that defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, having a publication office and resident agent in the city of New York, in said district, and that both complainant and defendant are citizens of the United States.

2. Further answering, defendant denies that complainant is or at any time was the author of any of the books or publications mentioned and referred to in the bill of complaint, to wit: The "American and English Encyclopædia of Law, Second Edition" and the "Encyclopædia of Plead. ing and Practice;" and further, upon information and belief, denies that

the complainant is the proprietor of any material or substantial part of any of said books or publications; further denies upon information and belief, that said books or publications were edited, prepared, published or otherwise produced from original sources of information; on the con trary this defendant alleges that the said books and publications referred to in said bill as being the complainant's, were produced and made up by the unlawful use and appropriation of numerous copyright publications, which were not and have never been the property of complainant, and which were appropriated, used, copied, pirated and employed by complainant, in defiance of the rights of the authors and proprietors of the same, and in violation and infringement of the copyrights thereof.

3. Further answering defendant denies, on information and belief, that the "American and English Encyclopædia of Law, Second Edition" is a new or original work, and likewise alleges that the said “Second Edition" is based upon the "First Edition" thereof; and that neither editions of said books is original work, but that both said First Edition and said Second Edition are made up by the piratical use of copyrighted publications which were and are the works of authors whose labors the complainant and writers employed by complainant and its predecessor in business unlawfully and piratically appropriated.

4. Further answering this defendant alleges, upon information and belief, that complainant has unlawfully appropriated and piratically used, in the preparation and production of the forty volumes of its Encyclopædias particularly set out in the bill of complaint, a great number of volumes of law reports, text books, law dictionaries and other legal publications, all of which are and were duly copyrighted and the copyrights of which are and were the property of other writers or publishers, and among others the following:

The American Digest, Annual 1887, title recorded April 24, 1888. The American Digest, Annual 1888, title recorded April 6, 1889. The American Digest, Annual 1889, title recorded May 16, 1890. The American Digest, Annual 1890, title recorded December 1, 1890. Defendant further says upon like information and belief, that in the case of each of the above-named volumes of the American Digest, the printed title of each volume respectively was deposited in the mail by the West Publishing Company before the publication of each volume addressed to the Librarian of Congress at Washington, District of Columbia, for record, furthermore that in the case of each of said volumes two complete printed copies thereof, were also duly deposited in the mail by the West Publishing Company within ten days after the publication of each volume respectively, addressed to the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, to complete the copyright therein, and that the fees required to be paid to the Librarian of Congress were all duly paid. That the notice of copyright required by law, was also duly inscribed in the page immediately following the title page thereof, in the several copies of every edition published of each of said volumes as such notice appears in the several volumes of the same.

Deponent further says upon like information and belief that in the case

of the following books published by the West Publishing Company, the copyright thereof was duly taken out by said West Publishing Company as follows: In the case of each volume, before the publication of the same, the printed copy of the title thereof was deposited in the mail within the United States, to wit: at St. Paul, Minnesota, addressed to the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia; and that not later than the day of publication of each of said volumes two complete printed copies of the same, printed from plates made from type set within the limits of the United States, were also deposited in the mail within the United States, addressed to the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, to complete the copyright in each volume, and that the notice of copyright required by law was also duly inscribed in the several copies of every edition published of said books in the page immediately following the title page thereof as such notice appears in the published volumes of said books, and the titles thereof are duly recorded in books of the Library of Congress, as follows:

[Next followed dates of record.]

Defendant further alleges upon information and belief that in the case of said Jacob Fisher's Digest a printed copy of the title of each volume was before the publication of each volume deposited in the mail addressed to the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, and recorded by the Librarian of Congress on the days above set out; that within ten days after the publication of each volume, two complete printed copies of each volume were deposited in the mail addressed to the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, District of Columbia, in order to complete the copyright, and the fees required by law were all duly paid. That in the several copies of every edition of each of said volumes in the page immediately following the title page thereof, the notice of copyright required by statute was also duly inscribed in the words prescribed by statute, and as such notice appears in each volume of said Jacob Fisher's Digest.

[Next followed dates of record of United States Digest.]

Defendant further alleges upon information and belief that, in the case of said United States Digest, First Series, and said United States Digest, New Series, a printed copy of the title of each volume was before the publication of each volume deposited in the mail, addressed to the Librarian of Congress at Washington, District of Columbia, and recorded by said Librarian of Congress on the days above set out; that within ten days after the publication of each volume two complete copies of each volume were deposited in the mail addressed to the Librarian of Congress at Washington, District of Columbia, in order to complete the copyright, and the fees required by law were all duly paid. That in the several copies of every edition of each of said volumes, on the page immediately following the title page thereof, the notice of copyright required by statute was also duly inscribed, in the words prescribed by statute, and as such notice appears in each volume of said United States Digest, First Series and New Series.

Defendant further alleges that in the case of all of the foregoing books