28 FEDERAL asroarnrz, vol. 38.
second civil rights bill,) the revisers broke up section 5 of the original
act, making out of it sections.1983 and 1984 ofthe Revised Statutes;
and in commencing the second of these sections they substituted for the
. pronoun "they " the words "the commissioners authorized to be appointed
b the recedin section " as a more suitable be innin of a aragra h.
Y P 8 » E 2 P P
There was no design to change the law, but only an inadvertence in the
rearrangement of the sections. The present law must therefore have the
same interpretation as the statute from which it was derived. The sup-
posed necessity of appointing some one other than the marshal or his I
deputies to execute process is not believed to exist or to have ever ex-
isted in this district, but that fact can have no possible effect upon the
interpretation of the statute. The account is allowed.
i TAM v. Srnrr-1ENs Lim. & ENG. Co. -
(Oarcuit Oourt, E. D. Mt380uT{, E'. D. March 26, 1889.)
1. COPYRIGHT—FOBFEITUREB—ll`ALBE Norton.
_ Rev. St. U. S. § 4963, provides that every person who shall insert or impress
notice of copyright on any article not cgyrighted “shal1 be liable to a penalty
of $100, recoverable, one-half, " etc. edd, that though, where one on differ-
ent days under different circumstances iprints separate,copies, each separate
transaction may constitute a separate o ense, yet that the printing of many
V copies as a single continuous act is but one offense, and each imprint is not
a separate cause of action. ~ ·
‘ 2. SAME——QUI TAM ACTION-·PETI’I‘ION.
‘ A petition alleged that on a certain day, and at divers times between that
day and the commencement of the action, defendant engraved, etc., and sold
to the number of 10.000 copies, a certain print, etc. Held, that but one cause
of action for a single penalty of $100 was stated.
8. SAME-Aarrcmr Nor Summer ·ro Corvmenr. ‘
The article upon which the false notice was placed was described in the
petition, the description showing it to be the subject-matter of copyright;
but the petition further averred that the article was not subject to copyright.
Held, that in such an action the court will not labor on demurrer to reconcile
inconsistencies in pleading, and that, as the penalty is not recoverable for
plalcing the notice on an article that cannot be copyrighted, the petition was _
a . _
At Law. On demurrer to petition. For opinion on plea to the juris-
diction, see 37 Fed. Rep. 726. S .
W. E. Ftsse, for plaintiff.
Paul Bakewell, for defendant. . V _
BREWER, J. This is a demurrer to the petition.) The action is a gwé
tam action brought by the plaintiii as informer under section 4963, Rev.
St. U. S.,.to recover the penalty therein named. The petition alleges
that the defendant printed and circulated 10,000 copies. of a chromo,
which is described, putting on each the word "copyrighted," or some
equivalent word. The section provides that "every person who shall in-