Conklin

The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Houser. We are all in agreement that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. We of the majority, however, think that the alleged publication of which plaintiff complained was neither libelous on its face nor capable of being given a libelous quality by means of any amendment to the complaint. We therefore are of the opinion that the court very properly dismissed the action without first giving plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

There being no argument presented in support of the appeal from order denying motion to strike cost bill, that appeal is deemed to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed. The order is affirmed.

York, J., concurred.

— From the complaint filed in the lower court in pertinent substance it appears that plaintiff, as an author, and the defendants, as publishers of a newspaper, theretofore had agreed one with the other that the defendants would publish as a serial in their newspaper a certain story which had been written by plaintiff and as to which, with the knowledge of the defendants, plaintiff was desirous of copyrighting both in the United States and in Great Britain; that (as alleged) “in order to secure a copyright in the United States an affidavit must accompany the application for copyright stating that the ‘matter is printed from type set within the borders of the United States’; that in order to copyright the same material in Great Britain there must, under British law, be simultaneous filing for copyright in Washington, D. C., and in the British Museum in London, the British law allowing only fourteen days for transportation by mail as a divergence in dates of filing; that unless British copyright is secured simultaneously with the copyright in the United States the same matter could never later be copyrighted in Great Britain”.

The complaint contains further allegations to the effect…