IntereNting WcciMnn of an " AmHscment One of the Supreme Court judges of New York, in deciding the Christy Minstrels injunc tion case, (to which we have before alluded,) made some remarks on public amusements which are somewhat peculiar. This case, it will be remembered, was nn application, by Edwin Christy, against one Murphy and others, to restrain and prohibit them from using the npellation of " Christy's Minstrels," to which title the plaintiff claimed the exclusive use and right. The following decision was rendered by the Court : It is now well established, that the Court will pram an injunction o - ruinst the use. bv one tradesman, of the trademarks of another. Will this protection be extended to enterprises umiertukeu for the purpose of atfordinir amusement or recreation to the public f With retard to trade, it may be allepeil, that the inter ests of commerce and the encouragement ot industry niHni'V - stlv rennire and deserve the interposition of the Court ; while tho well - being of society is not siim - cientlv concerned to require tlie extension ol tins specie of protection to undertakings ol wiilcti the main, if not the sole object, is at the best mere pastime. This can he the only around on which itCBn be plausibly claimed that the Court cuu make any difference in iuterposinjj relief between the present cone and an ordinary case of trade marks. But I have been unable to discover any essentiul difference, in kind, in reference to this subject, - between establishments formed tor the purpose of trade and those formed for the purposes of mere amuse ment. There mav be, in decree, a diflerence and a considerable difference, iu the respecttibility and utility of such undertakings; but while neither exer - cises'or is ueoessarilv calculated to exercise any de moralizing influence, I consider one as well entitled to the protection of the law as the other. " Man does not live by bread aloue" that is, the complete enjoy ment even 411 tua puysicai exisicuw noes not uepeuu upon mere food or raiment, or other material substancesbut upon the exercise of the various and numerous meutai and moral faculties, with which Jod lias endowed us. It may be as necessary to lmi;h as to eat ; aud, 1 am persuaded, if people would eat less and laugh more, that their moral us well as physical belli? would be materially improved. The irravest of poets sings, that Tin love of plrsAtirr m mini's rldest born. W isduin. Imt miis'ersirtlrr. thrii,'U more grave. as meant to minister and not to mr Imperial pleasure, ipi - t - uoi htiinan ht artft.1' It is unquestionably the duty of Courts to regard with disfavor any establishment having any telidency to corrupt the public morals, to create idle or dis sipated habits, t encourage a cranu? fur undue excitement, or to impair the la. - te for domestic attachment and domestic society. Nothing Inis been shown on this million to induce me to believe that the establishment ol" the rlainlin" had nnv tendency to produce effects of tiiis description. These entertainments mav not be of that kind, in - which men of the highest refinement and delicarv of culture would take any paruculardelight, but they serve a very salutary purpose, if they afford diversion and music to the million, at a small expense, aud without the dissipation and silly display of places of much greater pretensions. The plaintiff organized and established In 1 R 1 1 a baud of performers ot negro minstrelsy, which be named after himself "Christy's Minstrels." IK - was the first - who established this specie of entertainment. When he romiueticed it, he incurred some expenditure of time, labor aud money, and on tinned it with success in this city until the full of li04. when he suspended it here and went to California. After an absence of some months, he re - turned. He lias not yet resumed his performances. ut declarer iunt it his intention tuun In do tu. in the meantime. defendants, most of whom belonged to his baud, but were merely employed by him as performers at a certuiu stipend, have assumed the stvle and name of thristv's Minstrels," and l.e sks the court to enjoin them against continuing tin - use of his name. For the rea - otis I have mentioned, 1 think he is entitled to its exclusive use. and unless he has given the deft - ndauls a license to use if. his P. pucation must be granted. The defendants have furtiishi d ivO satisfactory evi - ence. 01 a license: and. if tL - ev had. unless thev could also show it was irrevocable, they would have 1 nt'lit totucMiseot bis name one moment alter he iirniheil his lufinllon to discontinue or withdraw i privilege. 1 lie motion to continue the lniunrtirvi mini.:. with tei) doljurs r.osl.