30 . v‘‘· rnnnrzst naroarmz, vol. 38. ~
Another ground of demurrer is that the chromo upon which the word
"copyrighted". was placed was not the subject of copyright. Thelaw is
clear that no otfenseis committed when the word"-copyrighted " is placed
upon an article that is not the subjectrnatter of copyright,=—that cannot
be copyrighted. ¤The law is designed to guard against deception, and
no one isdeceived when the word "copyrighted’.’i is placed upon an arti-
cle that cannot be copyrighted, suchv as a kitchen stove, or a railroad
car. Now, the plaintiff in this case describes the chromo, and the de-
scription discloses an article whichcould be copyrighted, and, if the
petition stopped with this description, it would doubtless be sufficient.
Butit goes further, and alleges that " said printing and chromo has not
been copyrighted by the defendant or any other person, nor was the same
subject to copyright under said ·1aws." Thus it appears that the aver4 ‘
ment of disability is not limited to the person, but is cast upon the print.
It was not `the subject of copyright. · There is in this an apparent con-
tradiction to that which might be inferred from the language of descrip-
tion. Counsel suggests that the-thought he had was that under the
particular circumstance  this printcould not be copyrighted., audit is
possible that there might be circumstances which would thus at the time
exclude this print from copyright, although in its nature it was the sub-
ject-matter of copyright. ·But in a criminal or quasi criminal action the
pleading should be clear and consistent. The court is not called upon
. , to strain any language to remove doubt or secure consistency. There
should be no labored effort at reconciliation of apparentlylcontradictory
averments, at least when the pleading is challenged before trial. So, be-
cause it is alleged that the print was not the subject of copyright, we
think the demurrer should be sustained, and it is so ordered. Subse-
quent pleading may be prepared with reference to the views of the offense
as above expressed. Plaintid will be granted 30 days in which to file an
o amendedpetition, and defendant 30 days thereafter to plead thereto.
Lucxnmmrmc ·v. Masons, Collector. _
i _ _ (Circuit Court, B. D. New York. January 7. 1889. ·
Cnsrous DU*rms—Dnnss Goous—Ac·r' Manou 3, 1883. Sonmnurln l-.
Women’s dress goods composed chiedy of wool, with from 1.99 to 4.74 per
V cent. of cotton introduced in the warp and selvedges thereof for the purpose
` , of changing the classification, in the form of a fiber, the warp bein a mixed
or compound thread of wooland cotton, held not to have been indde "with
, »t threadsof other materials," within the meanin of said schedule. . Also, held,
that the language of said paragraph in said gchedule K explicitly restricts
the operation o said clause to threads wholly composed of other materials
~ than wool or-worsted. ` ` ‘ '   ~ · *
(Syllabus by the Court.) »<
At Law. Action to recover customs duties. T V