Ex-Justice C. C. COLE, of the District of Columbia. Justice EMIL MCCLAIN, of Iowa, Author of "McClain on Criminal Law," etc. Ex-Attorney-General W. A. KETCHAM, of Indiana. Justice H. A. SHARPE, of Alabama. Justice CHARLES V. BARDEEN, of Wisconsin. JOYCE & JOYCE, Authors of "Joyce on Electricity," etc. JOHN M. GOULD, Author of "Gould on Waters," etc. GEORGE F. TUCKER, Joint Editor of "Gould and Tucker's Notes on the U. S. Statutes," etc. Justice WALTER CLARK, of North Carolina, Author of "Clark's Annotated Code of Civil Procedure of North Carolina." Justice W. A. JOHNSTON, of Kansas. Hon. GEO. H. BATES, of Delaware. Justice H. C. McWHORTER, of West Virginia. Hon. JOSEPH F. RANDOLPH, Author of " Randolph on Commercial Paper," etc. Hon. LEONARD A. JONES, Author of "Jones on Mortgages,'' etc. Chief Justice A. C. KILLAM, of Manitoba, Can. Hon. A. B. BOLLES, Author of "Bolles on Banking." Hon. JOHN NORTON POMEROY, JR., Editor last edition of "Pomeroy on Equity." ROGER FOSTER, Author of "Foster's Federal Practice," etc. MARION C. EARLY, Author of last edition of "Bishop on Statutory Crimes."' ARDEMUS STEWART, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hon. J. D. LAWSON, Author of "Lawson on Contracts, etc. Ex-Presiding Judge R. E. ROMBAUER, of St. Louis Court of Appeals. H. W. WELLS, Author of "Wells on Replevin." Hon. CHARLES F. CHAMBERLAYNE, Editor of "Best on Evidence." 32. That while the first and second volumes of defendant's said Cyclopedia were in preparation, it was considered desirable among other things to ascertain whether the plans adopted by defendant were adequate to meet the competition which would arise between the defendant's volumes and those published by complainant. It was determined at the outset that every writer selected by the Editors in Chief should be require to stipulate that he would not look into any of the complainant's publications, for the reason that otherwise questions of infringement of copyright might arise, and these, of course, it was desired to avoid, and in pursuance of this policy the president of defendant personally made the aforesaid stipulation with each writer employed. 33. Thus there was no method of comparison between the volumes of cases, collected by defendant's writers and that collected by complain ant's writers. Nor was there any way of tracing up the numerous errors of citation in complainant's publications. In order to get at this information defendant consulted competent counsel, was advised that such comparison could lawfully be made by checking off the cases cited in defend ant's publications by those cited in complainant's publications. 34. In order to do this without permitting defendant's writers to use the volumes of complainant's publications, some of defendant's stenographers were employed to collect all the cases from a number of the articles published in complainant's publications. These cases, viz.: the bare citations were copied on slips of paper about 4x8 inches. On each slip was the volume and page from which taken, and the title of the case, e. g., Jones v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 40. There was nothing to indicate what point was decided by the case, but only that it was a case cited in the article. 35. Further answering, defendant alleges, upon information and belief, that each writer was instructed generally to make a thorough and complete article on the subject assigned to him, and was informed that he would be held responsible for a complete collection of all the authorities on such subject, to the date of its preparation. The writers were notified that the American Law Book Company had made arrangement for the use of the publications of the Bancroft-Whitney Company, of the Lawyer's Co-Operative Publishing Company, and of the West Publishing Company, and the Digest slips of the last named company were furnished to the writers, together with the bare names of cases from complainant's encyclopædias as a starting for that purpose, with instructions to check off the material collected by the writers, but defendant's writers were required to write their articles from the cases in the original law reports. 36. That from quite a number of complainant's articles the cases were thus copied and turned over to complainant's writers in connection with articles in volumes 1 and 2. Some of defendant's writers worked on this plan with the first articles written, but thereafter refused to spend the extra time required, for the reason that by defendant's plan of work involving the thorough examination of all the Digests and reports, all that was valuable and authoritative in the reports was obtained, and that the checking off system involved a great amount of labor without any corresponding benefit. The checking system was therefore abandoned and the cases which had been copied from a number of complainants' articles were thrown away without being used even for advertising purposes. 37. Defendant further answering on information and belief, denies that the volumes 1 and 2 of its Cyclopedia contained a large or any amount of complainant's original or copyright matter, or any matter whatever pirated or copied from complainant's publications or from any of them, and upon like information and belief alleges, that there is not in either of defendant's said volumes so much as one line copied out of the complainant's publications or any of them, set up in the bill of complaint herein. 38. Defendant further answering denies that it has, in its said volumes one and two, as a substitute for, or in lieu of a resort to original sources, unfairly or otherwise used the results of complainant's labor as set forth in complainant's publications, or has incorporated such result in defendant's said volumes, and likewise denies that defendant's publications are to a large or any extent the product of complainant's original work, either as alleged in the bill or otherwise; likewise denies that defendant instead of resorting to original sources for citations of cases, definitions of terms, statements of legal principles, and similar legal information, has to a very large extent, or to any extent, obtained the same from complainant's publications or from any of them; and likewise denies that it has unfairly availed itself of any of complainant's work, either as alleged in the bill or otherwise; likewise denies that it has published any of complainant's work in unfair competition, or in violation of any of complainant's alleged copyrights; on the contrary it alleges that in so far as there has been competition between the publications of defendant and complainant, such competition has been fair and open, and that the superiority of the plan of defendant's publications over that of the complainant's and the superiority of the work contained in the defendant's books, has always been pointed out to prospective customers, in order that being made acquainted therewith and seeing the work for themselves such customers might be in position to select the best. 39. Defendant denies that it has in any way or manner availed itself of the alleged good name or standing of the complainant, and on the contrary alleges that it has always adverted to and advertised the fact prominently brought before the public that it not only had no connection with the complainant but was engaged in the publication of a legal cyclopedia much superior to that produced by the complainant. 40. Defendant admits that some of the better class of writers who at one time were engaged in writing for complainant, have come to work for defendant, for reasons best known to themselves, and that some of the salesmen and agents who had been trained by said Dumont, have returned to him, preferring apparently to be associated with him in the work of introducing defendant's books to purchasers, rather than to remain with complainant, and that such writers and salesmen, and agents, had perfect legal and moral rights to do so, so far as known to defendant. 41. Defendant denies that it has skillfully or otherwise simulated the title of complainant's publications or of complainant's advertising matter, or that it has used quotations or apt phrases long or otherwise associated with complainant's publications, denies that it has pirated upon complainant's publications or done anything to conceal any alleged piracy upon complainant's publications; denies that it has availed itself of any original copyrighted work or methods or ideas of complainant in making, preparing or selling defendant's publications; and further denies that by such means or by any means defendant has been enabled to prepare and publish its books with greater ease or accuracy than would be otherwise possible; on the contrary defendant alleges that it has always been careful to avoid the ideas and methods of complainant in preparing and selling the books prepared by defendant, for the reason that defendant has learned before the plan of its cyclopedia was developed, that the ideas and methods of complainant in preparing its books and in employing many cheap writers of inferior capacity, and the publication of the same upon the endless chain editions plan adopted by complainant, were to be carefully avoided. 42. Further answering defendant admits that its volumes one and two are much more accurate than the books of complainant, but denies that defendant's books were prepared with greater ease or at less expense than the books published by complainant, and alleges that it has required much harder and more skillful work to prepare defendant's volumes than to prepare books in the manner in which the complainant's books are prepared; and that so far as defendant knows the prices paid by defendant to its writers and editors are higher than those paid by complainant for work upon its publications. 43. Defendant further denies that any infringement, copying or piracy of defendant upon the books of complainant will appear upon an examination or comparison of said Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, volumes one and two, with the alleged copyrighted books of complainant; further denies that there has been any infringement or copying or piracy; and denies that defendant's said books, volumes one and two, are infringements or piracies upon the alleged copyrights of complainant; defendant denies that by any unfair acts or devices it has been selling its cyclopedia to persons who would otherwise have bought or would now buy the books of complainant; it admits that it has been selling numbers of its books to persons in the legal profession who purchased defendant's said books in the belief as they represent to defendant, that defendant's books are much superior to those prepared and published by complainant, and that they are published upon a plan much more desirable than the endless chain edition plan of complainant's publications. 44. Further answering defendant alleges that it has organized a large and valuable business in which more than three hundred and twenty thousand dollars have been expended; that five volumes of its Cyclopedia have been published, and matter for from eight to ten additional volumes has been prepared; that it has a large and highly competent staff of writers in its employment and has outstanding contracts amounting to many thousands of dollars with numerous prominent law writers and judges, for the writing and editing of articles for its cyclopedia, many of which have been completed and many others are in the course of preparation, and that the high standard of work set in its early volumes will be maintained throughout, that in so far as defendant's books have superseded or may hereafter supersede the books of complainant, it will be by reason of the fact that members of the bench and bar are intelligent enough to understand the particular kind of books they require and competent to compare the books of the defendant with those of complainant, and select the particular publication which will best satisfy their requirements. " which are 45. Further answering, upon information and belief, defendant alleges that by reason of the piratical use made by complainant of many and various publications, and the infringement of the copyrights in such publications, in the preparation of the volumes of the "American and English Encyclopædia of Law, Second Edition," ," and in the preparation of the volumes of the "Encyclopædia of Pleading and Practice, particularly set out in the bill, and by reason of a like piratical use and infringement by the predecessor of complainant in preparing the "American and English Encyclopædia of Law" referred to in the bill as the first edition, neither the complainant nor its predecessor obtained any lawful or valid copyright in the said books or in any of them, and that the alleged copyrights upon which this action is based, are one and all of no effect and void. 46. Defendant denies that it has in any wise infringed upon the rights of complainant as alleged in the said bill, or otherwise, and denies that it has in any wise infringed the alleged copyrights in complainant's books referred to in the bill, or any of such alleged copyrights. 47. Defendant denies that complainant is entitled to any relief whatsoever or any part of the relief in said bill of complaint demanded, and alleged that complainant has no standing in this court or in any Court of Equity. 48. And defendant prays in all things the same benefit and advantages of this, its answer, as if it had pleaded or demurred to said bill of complaint. 49. And defendant denies all and all manner of unlawful acts whatsoever, whereof it is in any wise by the said bill of complaint charged; all of which matters and things this defendant is ready and willing to prove as this Honorable Court shall direct, and prays to be hence dismissed with its reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. AUGUSTUS T. GURLITZ, AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY, by CHARLES W. DUMONT, President. Solicitor for Defendant and of Counsel. STATE OF NEW YORK, City and County of New York. Charles W. Dumont, being duly sworn deposes and says that he is president of the American Law Book Company, the corporation defendant above named, and is well acquainted with its business, that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof; that the |