Central Law Journal.

ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 4, 1918.

QUALIFIED RIGHTS OF ADDRESSEE IN LETTERS AS LITERARY PROPERTY.

In King et al. v. King, 168 Pac. 730, decided by Wyoming Supreme Court, the question was of the right of sender and addressee to restrain, by injunction, the publication of letters, which defendant clandestinely had obtained and used in a divorce suit.

In this case it appears that personal and private letters had been written by one of the plaintiffs to the other and defendant had used them as evidence in her divorce suit against such other plaintiff and at the conclusion of the case by agreement they were sealed up and placed in the custody of the clerk of the court. Afterwards dedendant in the proceeding at bar by her application to the court sought an order for the unsealing of said letters so as to use them in a proceeding before a lodge of a secret order. Temporary injunction was denied against granting of the order and this ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court of Wyoming.

In an early opinion by Judge Story it was ruled that the author of letters written and sent to another had exclusive copyright therein and could prevent publication thereof by addressee for his own benefit. It was said: "In short, the person to whom letters are addressed has but a limited right in special property (if I may so call it) in such letters, as a trustee or bailee, for particular purposes, either of information or of protection, or of support of his own rights and character."

that of Baker v. Libbie, 210 Mass. 599, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 944, in which the question of the publication of the private letters of Mrs. Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was involved.

It was claimed that the use intended to be made of the letters came under a recognized exception justifying the use of the letters and was for the purpose of public justice. But the court said: "By no concep

tion can it be claimed that the tribunals or rules adopted within the precincts of a secret organization could be considered for the purposes of public justice publicly administered according to the established institutions of the country."

While this view is sound, yet we greatly doubt that the, exception would cover a case of a party seeking to use in a suit for vindication of his private rights in a court. of justice such letters.

It might be that in a criminal prosecution they might be available as evidence. But where a civil action is tried, public justice should not override a third party's vested rights in seeking one's own rights.

The exception above stated admittedly is limited to cases where letters do not tend to criminate any person required by law to produce them for use as evidence. But this is on the theory that outside rights are in no wise to be jeopardized by one using judicial tribunal to secure justice for himself. His claim for this is a private or personal matter. It is not a matter of public justice that it be granted to him. It is matter of public justice only as the setting of a precedent in law, that procedure therefore be in due and regular course. Above all things a court of justice goes upon the principle that no vested. right shall be taken away from another without his having his day in court. And it is said in the case considered that a