The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-18 00:00:00

TOE LAW OF COPYRAiIia.

pines. The plaintiff amid Lady Rolle never allowed
the sarcleue to la. seen with t her permiiiiiiisn.
-- --- I Ni. evidence was given on the 'tart of Lady Rolle.
On Titerday, Vice Chanceller James delivered judg. I Mr. Bil jeallt It Ammon, ha his openhig address and
ment in the copyright case of "Jarrold v. Heywood." in autmniug up, asked the jury t , award fair and
The Vice.easucellor said the plaintiff, whit was the temperateilamases. Mr. Baines fe't that he had been
nublisher of a work called " Dr. Brewer... Gnide to barely used by the con, iuct of Lady Rolle after a arra
kg,ioo," complained of the defendant, who was the vice of nearly 30 year. to the late bird Rolle and to
publisher of a work called The ("ass Baok of Modern her lady ship. The jury would Lan% FOMO opinion of
Science," that the latter wo, k was a piratical infringe- her lads ship whet, it seat elicited by the other side
ment of the plaintiff's copyright in the former. Upon that she ',ever antlered the gardetis to be seen without
this quedion the usual head roll of cases hail (teen her emir. 55 11e1.11115siOn. The learned serjeaut said that
cited on jhoth tide.. The pl,tintiffs cases resolved persons in high stathins wereto be respeeted, but when
themselves into paraphrases and conimentaries on that they bigot what was i'ne to those woo hail faithfully
which was written of old times, "Thou shalt served tliciii they became contemptible. His learned
not steal." The iiefenilant's c isen reaolveil themselvee friend hail be, n very polite to Mr. Barnes in the wit.
into this, that every book published was published for tiesisibox aziel ha 1 the politeness c ane earlier, and an
the use of the whole wollel that every one might rtp.,1,.6,y 'been re, dere& there weehi have bee. w,
nee i
nse it to add to his store of knowledge, to enlarge and of the prisent preceedinge ; but rather than do so to
rectify his perceptions, to suggest to him ideas., to cora an old and faithful servant her lady ship had maintained
rect his conclusiona, to furnish him with priociples and her dignity. and the jury would now say what fair and
pacts. Nor was a man the les, entitled to this hesause reasonable damages her ladyship ought to pay.
hews! himself sham to write a book on the same or a In the course 01 the case it was proved that Mr.
similar subject. But hh use of a previous wet k must Flood, attorney for the plaintiff, reaiilisg at Exeter,
be fair and legitimate. Ou a question if literary had obtained the letter wri•tesi to Ms. Mseilltsre.
piracy, he (the Vice-Chanceller) apprehended that a Mr. Lopes i ivit.l the jury to arrive at the con.
i'"Y wool I receive some such d reciion as this : Take elusion that the justice of tie ca.e would be satisfied
this book into your hatala, weigh all the facts and cart . by an assessmeht of one far Ling in damaged. Lady
cumstances connected with the defendant's works bra Rolle was advanced in years, and felt irritated at the
then ask yourselves this question. Is any material pl. iintiff leaviog her service as soon it. he did. The
and nlll'stautill part of the defendant's work it tram le trued COnnroi cot, mented in atrong langu Age ins the
script id the plaintiff's work—a colourable addition to conduct of the attorsey, mei each that if (lune; had
or colourable variation of the plaimilr a work with: i been left to himsel tile astion w, old not have been
out any labour of literary composition so tile Pa" . brought, hut it was an attorney's action, soil he trustee!
of the defendant? The court had given itself that the jury would exhress their opiiiiiin liy the nominal
direction. A comparison of the two works settle. amount they ...aided.
fled the court that with regard to that part of Mr. Under-Sheriff Bitrchell tol I the jury that the
the defendant's work on heat Snd light any suggestion . libel Wts admitted. '(he only question for then. wa-
ig Merely I inicy was !direly out of the question. As the ens the plaintiff had sustaine I by the letters.
to other parts there was a striking similarity bitween There was no pretence for special damage. The letters
the two wiaks, but the defendant's authors Mid both were wiitten to two persons only, an i it was not
of thim sworn that they had not copied the "daintieh ~ because the plaintiff was poor in comparison with Lady
book. They raid that in the COLDPOiSition , f th 'se . Rolle, nor that her lady ship was rich, that they ahould
parts of their work they used the plaiEt'ff's hook, in I give consid.rable damages. It was their proviuce to
c, minion with fifty or inure hocks all upon the same ! erty whether mere nominal or substantial damages
kind if subjects and of the some character as toe' would satisfy the justice of the CAS.
plaintiff's !Hick. The defendant.s authors had not been I The jury retired, aml on their return, after a brief
crossaltainined. The court was satistied that the dee consultation, a.,.,, sac.! the damage at £lOO, the bell
Sendant's authors had honestly and snlatantially
I amount claimed in the declaration.
applied themselves as they might to the variona sonreed
of information before thew for the purpose id enabling
them to produce their work. The defendant's work
contained information on several important matters of
which no vacss was to be fouled in. the plaintiff's
book. The result on the whole was that the court was
of opinion that the defendant's authors were not guilty
of the literary larceny with which they were charged,
and the bill must be dismissed with costa