March 9 Sunday – The New York Times, which had actively covered and sympathized openly with Edward H. House’s lawsuit to enjoin the P&P play produced by Daniel Frohman, loudly announced Judge Joseph Daly’s verdict. (The Brooklyn Eagle’s coverage was much more objective.)

MARK TWAIN IS DEFEATED.

“THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER” CASE DECIDED.

JUDGE DALY UPHOLDS PLAYWRIGHT HOUSE

AND SAYS HIS DRAMATIZATION OR NONE MUST BE PRESENTED.

Edward H,. House, the invalid playwright, has won in his suit against Samuel L. Clemens, (Mark Twain.) Judge Daly in the Court of Common Please yesterday handed down a decision enjoining Daniel Frohman from producing Mrs. Abby Sage Richardson’s dramatization of the wealthy Hartford humorist’s novel. “The Prince and the Pauper,” which recently was seen in this city on the stage of the Broadway Theatre.

It is a great victory for Mr. House and a personal vindication of his honor, as the issue developed in court into one of the individual veracity between him and Mr. Clemens. The playwright’s attorney, Senator Eugene S. Ives, fully appreciated this. The decision was not handed down until noon. Mr. Ives at once got the necessary papers and sent an officer to Albany, where the piece was presented three previous nights of last week, to serve them. The officer left on the 2 o’clock train. He should have been in Albany before 7 o’clock.

The enjoined parties have a remedy at law, however, which will enable them to put the play on again on Monday. They can appeal to the General Term, and pending the confirming or reversing of Judge Daly’s decision they can produce the play by filing the necessary bond.

There has not been a theatrical lawsuit for years that has awakened the general interest that this case has. This was both owing to the prominence of the parties involved and to the fact that there was such a wide difference between the stories told by Mr. House and Mr. Clemens that it was very evident that somebody was wandering farther from “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” than was consistent with the oath that forms so important a part of legal testimony.

The case is not one that can be called involved or intricate. Briefly it is a story of an alleged injustice done to an author and playwright in straitened circumstances because of physical infirmity by a very wealthy author and publisher. Like the majority of writers, Mr. House is not eminent in commercial ability and business shrewdness. Mr. Clemens is a writer who is a notable exception to his rule. His is possessed of business sagacity that has made him a millionaire. On Mr. Clemens’s paramount ability over Mr. House in this regard the tale of woe told by Mr. House in court seems to hang. …

The fight in court was a bitter one. Senator Eugene S. Ives appeared for Mr. House, Messrs. Alexander and Green for Mr. Clemens, and Mr. Hummel for Daniel Frohman and Mrs. Richardson. Mr. House could show no formal contract to dramatize “The Prince and the Pauper,” but had had a most formidable bundle of correspondence that had passed between himself and Mr. Clemens on the subject. The most important of these letters have already been published in THE TIMES. Substantially the correspondence began with a letter from Mr. Clemens to Mr. House offering him one-half to two-thirds of the profits of the play if he would dramatize the book. Clemens acknowledged that he had tried to do it and made a botch of it. The correspondence then traced the course of the work as it progressed in Mr. House’s hands and referred to a visit of the dramatist to the author’s home to consult over the finishing touches of the work.