The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-20 00:00:00

VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MOWDAi, JAL 1..

LEIGIi T. CLAYTON.
In this case a bill of exchange for 3.3001. hail bees seeepeed•by
the defendant, and lodged in the hands of Sir P. Pool sad Co. by
a person named Cher, who had ',COOL advanced upon it. A gen.
deman named Thornhill speed to discount the bill, if k waien.
trusted to hint, and he gave an en ent to return it to the
bankers' in seven days, or make the 1,600/. When the bill
came into his hands, an attorney of the name of Wallin` said be
would have the bill discounted by a Mr. Sweennan, and be intro-
duced this gentlemen to Mr. Thornhill for this purpose. Sweet.
man agreed to discount it, if the bill was genuine, and to ascertain
this point, the parties proceeded to the bank of Coutta and. Co.
The bill was submitted to tht inspection of Mr. Antrobus for his
opinion. At this moment Sweetmais asked to see it, and when be
got posseseion of it he refused to return it It thenappeated to be
a trick between Sweetman and Walker to get peraesmon of the bill.
Thornhill brought an action of wirer so recover the bill. and "the
opposite party.applied for and obtained an injunction to gay-theme
proceedings o it was now moved to dissolve she Injunction had un-
der these circumstances.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought that in either case, whether
the party was ccinsidereu as the agent of Sir P. Pool, or If he was re
be considered under the responsibility of the =gagman ba.gave
to Sir P. Pool for the return of the bill, he was cadged te.bring
his action. The bill was wrongfully detained from him, end. the
Court was called on tel assist him in recovering it. He therefor*
considered in any situation the action ought to be brought. H.
would therefore chsseve the Injunction.

LITERARY PIRACY.
SAITILLD v. NICUOLSON •XD EEE L..
Mr. HEALD moved that Mr. Kelly, one of the defendants in
this case, be committed to the Fleet, for a violation of the &lama
of the Court, and for a breach of covenant protected by that de-
erce. Mr. Nicholson, it seems, was the author of a book called
The eirel•itertoral Bailie,. • Mr. Barfield was at that time in part.
nership with him, and he became the porchmer of the whole co,
pyright, and bound down Nicholson by covenant not to publish
any work which might interfere with the sale or circulation of the
one he sold ; but a short time only had elapsed when he published
Arehitertreal Dictiouney, resembling the other in every re,
spect,, in copy, letter-press, &c. Here, therefore, a work. was pub.,
limed, interfering with and detrimental to the book first publisd,
to the manifest violation of the covenant. The defendant, Kelly,
wishing to escape from the awkward situation in which the motion
for committal had placed him, now says that he was no partner to
the revenant, that the injunction was improperly granted against
him, and that he might violate it when he pleased. The offence
of the violation of the order of the Court was much aggravated by
the trick of the parties. The course of these parties was plain a
the order of the to junction was oot conclusive; the nee might be
re-heard, but Kelly thought proper out of Court to p.elibear the
duties of the (hurt; and declaring the injunctioo to be improperly
granted as to hint, he endeavoured to get rid of it by mere trick.
lie styes by affidavit that he jgave notice of motion for the dissolu-
tion of the Injunction before the notice of motion for committal was
served uponhim. But how did this appear? He served it oo the
solicitor of the plaintiff instead of the proper officer of the Court;
he made his motion on the 111th of December, and he served the
notice on the 20th, the day on which it ought to be tried. His ob.
ject in this was to have the advantage of the sale of this work dur.
ing the holidays, by which 13 or 20.0110 were sold. They had also
advertised the work in the newspapers and Avangelical sad Impe-
rial Magazines.

Vie i:Citestcr t.t.on—What part of the injunction is broken by
the publication referred to ?
Mr. HEALD said that part of it retaking the publication of
any work interfering with the sale or circulation of the book pur-
chased by his client. This fact was sworn to. The evidence of
many booksellers would prove that the sale was grievously injured
by the publication. There was, he was aware, a great minprti.
tion in the market, and Mr. Kelly would be no doubt glad to get
the most valuable articles as cheaply as possible. In the mean
time, the public stood by to sec if this piracy should be let Imre
on the world. His client had expended 11,0001. or 12,60111. on the
caries, and was particularly entitled to the protection of the Court.
tie thought the conduct of Mr. Kt Ily such as he could not justify,
and in his opinion the violation of the injunction was aggravated
by the sham notice which he had /liven the Vice-Chancellor. Mr.
Kelly does not speak of withdrawing from Nicholson. nor does
he use ator expression respecting any 'mum they might have.
When the injunction was originally granted, it might hare been
qtmliticd to meet the case of Mr. Kelly, and if violated it might
tall upon Nicholson; but when the order was applied for, Kelly
appeared as Nicholson, and there was no distinction taken between
them. The Colonic!, he presumed, had rot been instructed upon
that point. If the distinction were made, the injunction might
have been qualified, but so as rot to allow him to commit an act of
piracy, or to violate the orders of the Court.
Mr. SoLICITOIL•GENERAL said, he would not trouble the
Court witb many observations. The injunction was obteined
before (Arianism the application for its dissolution could not be
made in tune f why, he could not say, not was it material kle
would complain of the words 6' trick and piracy," which were used
by his learned friend Ile would not use the same expreseionsof the
opposite party, but he would maintain some parts of his conduct
were not alien front piracy. He had published variety, he
and notices respecting the works in question. lie had even take
the title page of Nicholson's book when it was in dispute. He hail
also taken the frontispiece, which was a temple supported by splen-
did pillars of the lon c Order. lie had also published an advertise.
relent, stating that the Architectural "lectionary was discontinued
by order of the l'ourt of Chancery, and he called upon the public
nut to be misled by any person whatever, as his work would be
published each month with improvements, and he invited those
who had purchased the numbers of the Architectural Dictionary
to bring them to him, and he wou'd allow half-prise for them, re.
riled his own publication was taken.
The Vice.t'llANCLi.i.oa.—The question is. if Mr. Derfield
did not draw the adverdsernants, and other publications of which
he complains, upon himself by his hand-bills.
The e.o L I IT Oa-ti EN Ea AL raid, Mr. Kelly was first Attlaell,
and his conduct was merely delendrim.
The ‘'ICE•CIIANCELLOR said that Mr. Nicholson was some
time since the author of a certain work, and, as it was stated in the
plesilinits, the plaintiff was in partnership wish hint. Shortly
after, the plaintiff purchased the whole copyright, and thus he Le-
conte the side proprietor. But he wns not in the trans action sad..
tied with the protection which the law afforded to literary progeny ;
and perhaps conceiving Nicholson to be a person likely to publish
works of a similar ili.ssetipt.on, be bound him by otverawit nut to
publish any such work, or abridgement, or any work whatever. that
might prejudice the sale, or directly or Indirectly interfere with
or impede the circulation of the work he hail sold. l'iton
the publication of the iseconel work, a bill was filed, not
alone for the purpose of restraining the allewsl piracy, but
also for the breach of covenant. Upon this occa.sto.l lie had
read passages of the two works. some of which bare a
strong cesembla• ce um each other; the object of both was sio.t.
*faunally the same. 'l'he title pages agreed, and nary parts wry
fikrirtiai et verbatim the same. And when the inju»clion cuss
sought Mr, both the defendants appeared by the sutm.e (*.WNW! ;
and there was no attempt smirk to show that Mr. Kilh wts rot an
agent acting for, in a partner with. the outer tide ; for if be
were not in either of these situations, an injtzt.c!on could
issue against Lim fora breath o )the covenant. to the htoti.
bill which was circulated by the defendant, stati•sg ilia• he an iht
apply for a dissolution of the injunction, and that hr was Cd• A-
dvil of success, and telling the public that his work would be
publ;shed in au improved state, it could cot be denied ilia: I,iim
was intei:ded to i2terbre with and prejudice the sale of Lie
work just publish, But whilst it was aJ t., cud that thus ws
tlicetizmliti he
cstofritteilcle .4y.thte
ehpl Court.aintit lieeotal h
d u;u,dt
•rim-miraw Gin own c•+n-
det
1111111ffe,,Sed by the and done
clues, rs who wished to eseltange thins tuu,tlxrs id a work Y. Web
j would never be continued, would be allowed lode prim if they sunk
!his, the plaintiff'. publication. It was., in his opeiiirt, to i.e COMO.
' demi that Kelly had published his advertise...lns with tue intro-
nun ot giving time woad a .air.cc; and Vi4Vdeclarstaiin, and that ho