The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-17 00:00:00

Ego EnidHaut.

EQUITY COURTS.—FmronDAY.
Detre the Lard Chancellor.
DIXON O. THE QOZIN.—PETITION OP RIOHT.—IS may
be remembered that Kr. Dixon'. petition of right, claiming
repayment of the sum of His. 44d., exacted from him by
the officers of excise ia Ireland, beyond the legal sum pay-
able for his license, was: argued before the Lord Chancellor
soma time ago.—Mr. Dixon at the mining of the wart yes-
terday respectfully cc quested his lordship to give his judg-
ment. He came from Dublin for the purpose, sad
he was anxious to return as soon as possible. He handed up
a paper to his lordship, containing what he had to say, and
he would attend again at the visirg of the court to hear his
lordship's judgment—The Lord CWincell ir said, " Net to
day, but to-morrow morning I will dispose of the mat-
ter."
ATTOZNIT GINEBAL V. WILSON AND OTHERS.—
CHANITY.—TItis appeal was further argued end adjourned
till Friday.

Bekaa Tlce•Chsnoellor Knight Bruce.
THE ROYAL ETCHINGS.
Putwcz ALBIIIT V. STSAMOZ.—The Viet-Chance.-
gave judgmeat in this cu as follows:- On the 20th of Oc-
tober last, the day of the commencement of this suit, the
plaintiff obtained on affidavits, without notice, an injunction
against one of the de fondants, a publisher in London, to
this effect, to restrain him, his agents, servants, and work-
men, from exhibiting the gallery or collection of etchings in
the bill mentioned, or any of such etchings, or from making
or permitting to he made any engravings or copies of the
same, or any of them, and front in any manner publish*
the same, or any of them, or from parting with or dipe*.
of the tame, or any of them, and from selling or in any new
net publishing, and from printing the descriptive catalogue
in the bill mentioned, or any weeks being or purporting se
be • catalogue of the said etchings, until further order.
The bill having been subsequently amended by adding'
' defendants and otherwise, more affi Writs were afterwards,
on the 6th of November, filed, with the view, as I collect, of
obtaining against one of the added defendants, Mr. Jasper
Temsett Judge, who has been styled at the bar an author,
an injunction similar to that which had been obtained in
°Mohler against the publisher, and such injunction was, I be
Bove, en the UMW 6th of November granted, and is still in
fetes against Mr. Japer Tomsett Judge. By it, however,
the ease of the publisher, entrained by the injunction of
(Weber, has been treated on each aide as not:affected, and I so
treat it now. In December the publisher tiled his answer,
and gave notice of the motion which was argued before me
previous to Coristenu, and of which I hays now to dispeie.
It seeksepartial dissolution of the injunction obtained in Octo-
ber, in these terms: It asks that the injunction awarded in
this suit against the defendant whom I have mentioned,
whereby he, his agents, servant., and workmen were strictly
enjoined and restrained from exhibiting the gallery or collee.
n of etchings in the bill mentioned, or any of such
etchings, or from making, or permitting to be made, any
lugs, or copies 01 the same, or any of them,
and from in any manner publishing the same, or
any of them, or from parting with, or disposing of the
same or any of them, and frem selling or is any manner
publishing, and from printing the descriptive catalogue in
the bill mentioned, or any work being or purporting to be
a catalogue of the said stage:a, until the said defendant
should fully answer the complainant's bill, or this honour
able court shuuld make order to the contrary, may be die-
s lved so far as such injunction restrains the defendant, his
agents, servants, and workmen, from selling, or in any man-
ner publishing, and from printing the descriptive catelogue
in the bill mentioned, or any works being or porponing to
be a catalogue of the said etchings. A substantial portion of
the injunction was therefore left unquestioned. The leading
facts for present consideration (taker g them only from the
four affidavits filed in support of the motion in Octob. r—the
catalogue and the sneerer ; those six documents forming the
evidence on whicn the publisher's counsel successfully con-
tended that the motion should be solely argued) may, I
think, be stated thus : A lady and gentleman, the latter
being the plaintiff, having, with a view, no doubt, to rations
and domestic amusement, learnt the art of etching, executed
from time to time, for their private use, several works of the
following description, some from drawings by themselves,
and some from other works of art in their pos-
session. They had a press also at their resi-
dence, pertly by means of which, and partly
by employing a printer in the country, they took impres-
sions, for their own use, fr-em the plates. The plates them-
selves, remained io toe custody of the plaintiff or of his con-
sort, or in the custody occesiunelly, or rather temporarily, of
Mr. Brown, the printer, for the purpose above mentioned.
A few of the impressions were given by the plaintiff or his
consort occasionally, but not frequently, to some of their
friends. It is probable or certain that of some of the im-
pressions
no copies were ever given. In this state of circum-
stances,
in Octuber, 1848, appeared the production, called in
the bill for the injunction, and calling itself, " A Deutip.
tire Catalogue," being a pamphlet of 30 pages or more,
printed by the defendant the publisher, relating to the etch-
ings I have mentioned, containing a list of the impressions,
that is of 63 or 61 dill rent plates etched par.ly by the
plaintiff and partly by his consort. This list comprises a de-
scription of the weeks, with various remarks upon them, in-
cluding very energetic commendatiuns, and of these not •
few. The correctness of the list (however obtained) seems
in point of enumeration of the subjects and dives of the
plates to be unquestionable, whilst the particulars and
observations ad.eed may be inferred to be as not wholly
aceurote, not wholly in eccurate. Toe pamphlet came forth
in a printed cover, upon which as well as upon the title
page it professes to be a descriptive catalogue of a gallery
of etchings, by the name and the rat,k of the pleintiff's con-
sort and himself. The cover was emblazoned with an im-
pression of the lady's coat of arms, and announced that
every purchaser of the pamphlet would be presented by
permission " ((or so it says) with a ft:l-simile of the auto-
graph of either the plaintiff's consort or himself engraved
(rum the original, the selection being left to the purchaser,
and the price is el:peace, An introductory essay or Barra
live, preceded and headed by another representation of the
coat of USW, states the contents of the work to be " A Col-
lection of Etchings perfectly unique," executed by the pl Lin-
tiff's consort and himself, which the proprietor (not naming
him) " has bun induced to submit to public exhibition."
After some anecdotes, some elections from the newspapers
of the year 1846, and some very perspicuously expressed com-
pliments, it d. clsres the whole collection—that is, the 63 or
64 etchings—" to be cow submitted to the inspection of
the public under the firm persuasion and in the full confi-
donee that • numerous clam of persons (mentiening the
class) would highly admire and appreciate," and so on. It
concludes with an intimation, not that the pam-
phlet or the acquisition of the means of com-
posing it would be, but that the abstaining from
such a proceeding would be worse than a theft.
This is, however, in poetry. The defendant, the publisher,
it seems printed 51 co: lee of the pamphlet, and in the second
week of October he and the defendant, the author (for the
letter of the let of November, in • part of the answer, is said
to have been the act of both) caused one of the copies to be
delivered in an envelope (I believe a blank enveloce) ad-
dressed to the consort of the plaintiff at their residence, and
that was the first notice of the publication; the first notice of
a scheme or proceeding of any such kind as it declared which
the plaintiff's consort or himself received. No one has sag-
gested or seemed to suppose that the exhibition thus remark-
ably announced, or :hat the publishing, or printing, or com-
posing, of any catalogue or pamphlet, or that any publicity
on the subject of the etchings was ever sanctioned or intended
by either. The plaintiff's affidavit of October states "although
copies of some few of the etchings had been given oocasion-
ally and very rarely to some of the pommel friends of his con-
sort, one to one friend and one to another; " yet, speaking
positively as to himself, and to the best of his belief, for his con-
sort, no such collection as that advertised for exhibition was
given by them or either of them, or by their or either of their
permission or consent; and that he believe*, and bu no doubt,
that no such collection could have been formed, except by
impressions surreptitiously and improperly obtained, and
that it has been so formed; and that he believe* " that such
catalogue, and the descriptive and other remarks therein
contained, could not have been compiled or made except by
means of the possession of the several impressions of the aid
etchings so surreptitiously obtained as aforesaid." Upon this
and the three contemporaneous affidavits, I had no Imitation
in granting the injunction in Oct,except as to the catalogue,
and with regard to that, the batter course seemed to be, to
allow the injunction to extend to that, receiving an under-
taking from the plaintiff, and also from hie solicitor, to abide
by any order as to damages which the court might thereafter
make.
The answer of the publisher states his case. He says be
knows nothing personally of the truth of the staettnorts in
the plaintiff's belt relative to the making the drawings, etch-
ings, and itspresions, bat has no reason to doubt tine truth
of such statements; that he does net know whether such
impreseioas have b-en made for the plaintiff's own use or
under such circumstances of privacy as set forth in plaintiff's
bill ; denies that he has surreptitiously possessed himself of
any of snob impressions; believes it to be true that acother
detendsnt, Jasper Tomsett Judge, purchased certain impres-
sions of etchings made by plaintiff 's consort and plaintiff,
from a person named Middleton. Defendant says that one
and only one of such impressions was sent to him for the
purpose of being mounted. A list of all the impressions et
such etchings, which have been obtained by the defendant,
J. T. Judge, are set forth in the catalogue mentioned in plain
tiff tsbill,butdetendant cannot et t tenth albite:W*li the impres-
sions of such etchings as have been in the pouession of the other
defendants. Believes that J. T. Judge has a collection clench
etchings. About the end of Augurt, 1849, the defendant
J. T. Judge, ceded upon defendant, and proporsel, to enter
into an arrangement with attendant to exhibit said femme-
sions, provided there was not the slightest objection on the
part of plaintiff's consort and plaintiff, and it was then ar-
ranged that an exhibition should be formed at the,Egyptian