In his decision granting an injunction against the further production of "The
Prince and the Pauper," Judge DALY points out that there is really no way
of estimating the damages which the applicant, Mr. HOUSE, has suffered. Mr.
CLEMENS ignored the agreement with Mr. HOUSE which the court finds that he made
and under which Mr. HOUSE had written a play and prepared it for production.
Although the play actually produced embodied ideas which are to be found in
Mr. HOUSE'S version and not in Mr. CLEMENS'S book, its success does not furnish
a criterion of what would have been the success of Mr. HOUSE'S play. This is
one of the peculiar hardships of the case, and one which the legal maxim that
there is no wrong without a remedy should be made to cover. In the absence of
a remedy "Mark Twain" might console himself, although the court distinctly
accepts Mr. HOUSE'S narrative of the agreement and distinctly rejects his own,
with the reflection of one of the characters in Mr. STEVENSON'S "Wrong
Box" that "all is sacred but honor."
|
Related articles concerning the Prince and Pauper: Related article in the New York Herald Articles from The New York Times January
21, 1890 - ELSIE LESLIE [review of opening of "The Prince and
The Pauper"] |
 Recommended biography: A YANKEE IN MEIJI JAPAN; THE CRUSADING JOURNALIST EDWARD H. HOUSE available from amazon.com |
Return to The New York Times
index
Quotations | Newspaper Articles | Special Features | Links
| Search