The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-12 00:00:00

'COM
minntserz CAUSE'

Gantt• ll.Pmrkard
Same v W. Pirtek.at:
Lewis v S•aples
Little v Sy non or
Symon
Brown v Ayling
flilletfr Lurk
Throtto-eon r liia
Dot% v Filuer
Carp r v Vnul
Walker r Powell •

COURT OF KING'S RENcil, WESTMINSTER.

%CF.I/NESDAY, JAM. 11.

Sidings Leibre Lord Chief Jratice A illtoTT rind Common Juries.
SI VS PUY v. 31 AcKLIN.
This was an action of tinter brought to recover tl:e valve of' cer-
tain goads which had been taken by the defendant from plain It.
anti unlawfully detained by him. The defentlarit pleaded Not
whereupon issue wall joined.
Itlr. SCAR LETT stated the case to the ,Ivry. Ills client was a
poor Irish shoemakt r, tval in the year 1821 occupied a small rot.m
in a house in Denmark-ea:let, Strand, beameing to a 3lr. Free-
land, a waiter at the Freemasons'' Tavern. In torso:gee:ice of
severe illness the plaintiff had not been able to pay his rent for
some time, anti he was, in the month of April in that year. 81. odd
in smear. Ilia landlord being very desirous to get rid of an unpro-
fitable a tenant, authorised the defendant. who is a broker and
auctioneer, to levy a dist teat on the plaintiffs got thi, and instructed
hint to take all he could find. In pursuance of these instruction,.,
the defendant's servants seized every thing that the plaintiff pas-
Besse'', even to the children'a wearing apparel, and the saucepan
that wes then actually on the fire with potatoes in it for the chit-
dren's dinner. The goods were removed to the defendant's stile-
tion-roorna ter the purpose of sale. After having sold property to
the amount of 111. odd, which was sufficient to cover the rent in
arrear, and the expenses, the sale of the remainder was stopped.
The derv:clan, then informed the piaintiti that all the goods had
been sold, hod that there was a balance of 4s. due to hint, after
deducting the rent and charges, which lie tendered to hint. The
plaintiff believing this statement to be correct, accepted the money
and signed a rereupt for it. Subsequently the plaintiff saw a leader
and a ret of fire.irons belonging to him on the delentisnt's pre-
mises, and which the defendant permitted him to take away.
Afterwards. on comparing the inventory of the goods seized with
the catalogue of the sale, the plaintiff discovered that several
articles which were mentioned in the former were not interred in
the latter and on further inquiry. he ascertained that those Sr.
ticlen had been reteined by the defendant. Among them was a
picture in needlework, which had been given to the plaintiff's wife
on her marriage by a lady of rank, with whom she had lived as
servant for many years. Several applia:ions had bee.' made to
the defendant to return the goods, particularly that picture, on
which a very great value was set, from the peculiar circum-
stances under which it became the property of the plaintiff;
but as the defendant had refused to comply with his reasonable
request, the present action was brought. Sa anxious was the
plaintif to recover back the picture, 'list even now, if the defend.
ant would undertake to return it, the plaintiff, notwithatandiog
the injury he had sustained in having his tools and the whole of
his property besides taken from him, wonld accept a verdict
for nominal damages; far the picture was, after all, the great
bone of contention between the parties. The evidence called to
support this statement was the man who accompanied the broker's
servant, and the plaintiff's son, a boy of 13 years of age, who
gave his testimony in a very intelligent manner. lie attended the ,
/tile, checked the articles as they were sold, and proved that
several of hit father's things were left unsold ; among the rest
was the picture in question.
The COSIMON Ssnontur, on the pert of the defendant, said
that the whole of the goods had been sold and accounted for; and
that if' by accident any were left unsold. it was 0wi0.4 to the ;;;;-7
Insignificant mitre. ne ff,en called srneral witnesses, who denied
ow having seen such a picture as described by the plaintiff's
son. One of them valued the whole of the goods taken under
the distress at 01. 125.; while another proved that that part only
which was sold realized 11/. odd.
The receipt was then put in, which stated the rent to be 81.,
and the goods sold to have amounted to 111. odd, and that 4s.
was paid to the plaintiff as the balance.
Mr. Seatt LETT in reply contended that the very receipt which
had just been read was sufficient of itself to taint the whole trans-
action with grows fraud ; for by law no auctioneer could charge an
high as to justify him to receive 31. on a distress for any sum less
than 2W. If therefore a man couki•he guilty of such a species of
imposition, it was a Lir inference that the defence which was now
set up was but an attempt to justify a similar act of injustice
towards his poor client. It had appeared, indeed, in the course
of the examination, that the defendant had been actually convicted
before the Magistrates, in a penalty of treble value, for hav-
ing charged these exorbitant fees. With regard to the picture he
begged to suggest, if it should meet with his Lordship's 'typo-
' hewn, that the Jury, in. estimating their damages, would state
specifically what value they fixed on it ; for so very anxious were
his poor clients to recover it back (and it was a very laudable
feeling that induced them to be so), that lie hoped the Jury would
feel themselves at liberty to put a fictitious value upon it, so as to
make it worth the defendant's while to return it ; in which case the
plaintiff would engage to refund that portion of the damages of
which the picture should be so estimated.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, on summing up, observed, that
it was entirely a question as to the weight of evidence, whether the
picture had ever come into the defendant's postuasicm. If the Jury
believed the testimony of the plaintiff's son, then ii was clear such
a picture was taken away by the defendant's servants under the
distress. In that case he saw no objection to their affixing a spe-
cific value upon it, es suggested by .Mr. Scarlett. It was clear that
more goods were seized than were sold by the defendant, for he had
himself returned the fender and fire-irons, after having pretended
to settle the business with the plaintiff.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 131.
estimating the picture at 5/.
SCALE V. BIRD AND nalesow.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, to recover compen-
aatioa for the injury done to his propertyy, in consequence of the
defendant Bird permitting the defendant demon to throw a quan-
tity of the residuum or waste of certain gas-works into a pit on
the premises of the former, through which ran a stream of water
that supplied the plaintiff's fish ponds.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. LawEs conducted the plaintiff's case,
and Mr. 31att it TAT thatof the defendant.
It appeared by the evidence that the plaintiff was a farmer, and
occupied several acres of land in the parish of St. Mary, Stratford.
le-Bow, in which were two ponds well stocked with fish. The
ponds were supplied with water from a stream that ran through the
adjoining land, In the occupation of the defendant Bird. Just
before the alleged injury was sustained the plaintiff' had about 30
head of cattle, and lON lamb-hogs depasturing in these lands, and
which drank from the ponds. Several of the lamb-hogs died, and
also one of the cows ; and the plaintiff's son, in seeking to each-
min the cause, found the water in the ponds very much discoloured,
and emitting a most offensive effluvium. He traced the discoloura-
tion in the stream as far as the pit in 3lr. Bird's field, where he
saw a large mass of the residuum from the gas-worka. On appli-
cation being made to Mr. Bird on the subject. that potleman ad-
' mitted that he had received 365. from Mr. Hanson, the other de-
fendant, to allow him to deposit In the pit the waste from the
works for a fortnight. The plaintiff removed several of the cattle
into a meadow that was laid down for grass, and was obliged to
sell the others at a considerable lose. Ail the fish in the ponds
were destroyed.
Mr. 11InnernT, on the part of the defendant, opened a state-
ment with a view to show that the source from whence the noxious
quality of the water proceeded was not the pit in the defendant
Bird's field, but in some other place ; but
The LORD Ciller JUsTiCe intimated that the cause was one
much fitter to be decided out of Court than by a Jury.
After consulting with their clients, the Learned Counsel on both
sides agreed to refer the matter, and a verdict was accordingly
taken tor the plaintiff', subject to a reference.
COPYRIGHT OF HARRIETTE WILSON'S MEMOIRS.
ITOCEDALE V. ON WHY N.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff who was the pro.
prietor of the copyright of " Harriette Wilson's Memoirs," to re-
cover compensation in damages for the injury he had sustained by
the defendant having pirated his edition of the first volume of that
work. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. RICHARDS opened the pleadings.
Mr. BaoUttualt stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff, he
observed, was Mr. John Joaepli Stockdale, the bookseller and pub-
lisher, of Pall-mall, and proprietor of a work, the name of which
had already been stated to them. :This action was brought to re.
cover compensation in damages from the defendant, who was also a
bookseller, for having printed and published copies of the first
volume of the work in question, and having thereby infringed the
copyright of the plaintiff. The Jury were aware that by several
Acts of Parliament, one of which wits passed so lately as the year
1814, being the /r4th of George the Third, the property of persona
in literary works was protected, and this action was given to those
whose copyrights were infringed. All that was neceseary for the
plaintiff to show was, that he had that right either by an assignment
from the author, or by being the author of the work himself, or the
assignee or representative of the persons to whom the copyright had
originally belonged. Then, if he could show that another person
had pirated such work, the present action immediately accrued to
him. Now he should be able to prove thus much to them, and
having done so, it would remain to be seen what defence could be
set up That it was as gross and palpable a piracy as could by
possibility be committed, the very title-page of the work itself de.
monstrated. For it was there set forth as being a correct verbatim
copy of the celebrated original work which was published at h. 6.1.
a volume, and which he (the defendant) proposed to sell at the re.
&teed mice of 4s. The avowed object, therefore, of the defendant,
was, that finding the original work to yield the plaintiff a very eon.
aiderable profit while published at 7s. 6d. a volume, be, in order to
avail himself of a portion of the,e great gains, chose to publish
and sell it at the touch lesser price of four shillings only. He
.understood that this Mr. Ouvrhyo did not secs, no? did he deny
that the property was Mr. thockdale's ; but tUthe said. " Tine
it is I have committed one offence t true it is I am guilty of one
set ; but then I have elan committed soothe/ canoe,
and I am also guilty et ameba illegality, he I Uwe

296

published a work which in some of its paves arc fibril*" and to
others irrefigerue." Such was the kind or deferirethat the defend-
ant wan expected to resort to, tad a nacre torleeenr, or a mow
gross der^..v, tan never before set tip. Alt illogmg hi, elm
wrmg, in publishing( libel:eon and licoutioue work, for the par.
po‘e of cot •ring an attack ;mule by Wm upon the property of inn
titer, he thougth deserved t , be. wiol wan characterised by• hate
•:ty properly so it MOO clef,te. lie beget! the Jury Mit
to let his Learned Friend I Air. Scarlet') run away with their dude'
meat, by mune:thug to PIATI urea the WIWI': of at.y particularrF
sages in this work, anti thee, ny cihing upon them to tin far
the defer tlott, cheek tlie publication of it for they must have pars
ceived that nntlii-g could he mere preposterous than this pretence
of putting an cod to the rtrettlation of the work, when the very beat
posidde way of promulgating it. atm of causing it to go imp
nets it rthicti it would otherwise not gn, was by encenraging that
noecien of defence; an it was obvious that the cheaper the wt...k was
said the greater was the focthry afforded to the pubis to become its
pu e:onsers. lie took it therefore, to be quite clear that if such •
thpic could he urged at all, it lay on his tie melt, to with thy kind
0. consiateitcy. With respect to the nature of ili.s laud:, it Was *
strong and favourable circiunstance, that altho ten it had been fit
rircolation for a considerable petite!, yet nn action had been brought
'.gains the plaintiff tm account of its contents.
Tate Lout) Curer JI:RTICE reminded Mr. Brougham of the
henna brought by .711 r. ll:bre against the plaintiff:
Mr. Itaotin HAM said that was for a libel contained in soothe.
volume of the work. Ile wan informed that there were other parts.
but it was rot any of the parts which constituted the first volume
which contained that libel. He doubted not the Jury would hear II
good deal upon the immoral tendency of tile work; but the pre.
sumption wan, that there was Iw/thing libel/oo+ nor licentious to a
work which had been allowed toga so long without being prow.
cued. Not only was it kit ititassailed by any person, wit. or cognise
it would hare libelled, were libels at all contained in it ; but it bad
not been noticed nor at all proceeded against by any of the have
°Meets of the Crown, whole duty it was to protect the ptsbllir
morale and to supprees every publication that had a tendency W
corrupt them. If then, they who wire the guardians of the pub.
lit morals had done nothing, it was a reasonable ittfereuee and •
just presumption to arrive at, that there was no inch lieetitimas oe,
libellous passages contained in this work g loot that it should far
the first time be discovered by the defendant, who had been print.
ing and di.seminating it throughout the kingdom. That this wort
was liable to such an objecti:m was most extreardinary I As be
had nu doubt his Learned Friend would not give him an oppOrtue
nity of addressing the Jury again, he was obliged to anticipate the
nature of the defence that would be attempted. Most probably his
beamed Friend would state to them, that in another Coon it had
been decided, that persons who claimed property in works of air
irreligious tendency was not entitled to protection. He alluded to'
the case of exparte Murray in the Court of Chancery, where art
objection to the character of the work was taken ; but the Jury
would remember that that was an application for an injunction, end
there the Lord Chancellor said he would not under the cite-ewe
stances interfere, but leave the party to his action at law.
The Lorin CHIEF JUSTICE—I want no such authority in •
case of thin nature.
Mr. BRouottax continued. He called upon the Jury to reflect
upon thin kind of defence ; and on the comtequences that would re.
suit from its being establialted, that if one or two licentious pat-
sages could be culled nut by his Learned friend from the body of
this work, that upon that account only the book oho Id have no le-
gal protection. What havoc such a proposition would make
throughout the whole range of literature ! For he would maintain
that there were not many of the standard books but what would ad.
mit of tome few passages that would no longer be safe under such a
law. Few of the ancient writers or poets woald be free from itS
operation, and many of the English classics, which had hitherto
been estimated property of a valuable nature, could Ito longer be so
considered. And this would not he the only Cotsequence, for not
only would the owners of copyrights be unproteited, but no action
could be maintained for any thing done in respect of the priming oe
publishing of theM. He entreated the Jury to bear In their mind
hcw extensive would be the effect of such a rule. Having mew.
tloned thus much, it was only necessary for him to prove to them
the right of the plaintiff to the book in question, and the act of pi.
racy which had been committed, in order to entitle him to the!"
verdict.
John Box SteF.Lelear elrEnThed by Mr. IlicrtAnnt.—l am the

.:.r.er'lne-plaintiff, and assist him in his business of bookseller and
publisher. I have the manuscript of the first volume of the "Me-
moirs of Harriette Wilson with me. I have seen it in the pposses-
sion of my father, and have frequently seen him writing In it. It
was afterwards printed, published, and sold by my father. My Is- .
titer corrected the press. It was published by my father before a
was published by any one else.
Mr. SCAIILETT—I will trouble you for the manuscript. •
The manuscript was then handed to the Learned Counsel, who
proceeded to cross-examine the witness. I have seen my father
write in the manuscript, but I do not know whose writing theothar ,
is. My father Lever informed me.
Mr. ScanaErr —ll'hat ! is it not flarrieve Wilson's ? How-
ever, never mind that; pray does not your father hire persons to
write for him ?
Witnetoi—l do not know. I don't know that my tither is a mein- •
ber of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. There have been It
numbers of the work published, and it is still going on. Mr..
Poplett was the printer of part of it. Hie bill was not paid by my
father, and Mr. Poplett brought an action to recover. I heard the
trial in the Court of Common PL as.
Mr. SCARLETT—What objtkion did your father's Counsel,
take to the anion ?
Witness—l do not recollect.
Mr. SCARLETT—Then I will assist you. Did he not say that
this work was of so scandalous and vile a nature that no person
' could come Into a court of justice and claim to have bli ilght In is ,
recognized ?
1% itness—l believe that was it.
Mr. SCARLETT—And did not your father succeed in thecae's ?
Witness—Yes, he nid.
Mr. SCARLET T—And hat not paid the man to this hour.
( We could not catch the witness'iranswer to this question.)
He-examined by Mr. Boon° HAM--I beard the Learned Ser-
geant on that trial make the objection.
Air. Bootroluat—Did he not at the same time soy that he
took the objection himself without any instructious from your'
father ?
Mr. SCARLETT—WeII, what of that?
Witness—Yes, he did.
Mr. BROUGHASI—And had not your father merits besides or
meet the action ?
Mr. SCARLETT—How should he know ?
Witness—l believe he had.
Mr. Beovonase—And that your father never authorised km
to take that objection ?
The LORD Cutts* JUSTSCE —Be don not say any seals
thing.
Mr. Boottonam—But the Counsel says so, my Lord. Did Me
Counsel say that ire did it without any authority from your father
or hie attorney ?
Witness—Yes, Sir.
Mr. SCARLET T—Did not Poplett prove that lie printed part of
the work ?
The Loan Cntor Jurrich—You need not try that case ever
again, Mr. Scarlett
Mr. SCARLETT--No, my Lord.
The witnessthen produced a printed copy of the first volume of°
the work published by his father.
Win. Smith examined by Mr. Bitorrosaw—l bought the first
volume of Harriette Wilson's Memoirs at the defendant's shop, of
the defendant himself, on the 6th of March last. 1 have come
pared it with the number produced by the last witness, and found
them to correspond with each other, except a few literal more. L
cannot say that there were many ether numbers for sale. I did
not see any, for I was not In the shop above three minutes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scrinazisr—This book professes to by
a book containing the life of a courtesan, does it not I,
Witness—Yes, Sir.
Mr. SCARLET'S—It describes senses ? .
Witness—lt does.
Mr. SCARLETT—I will not mention names, kit do yew( romps.
ber a conversation that is stated to have taken place at the basal
a Mrs. Porter ?
Witness—l do not recollect such a name.
Mr. SCARLETT-. Turn to the book at page 121; thesle la a a.:
scription given of her meeting a person there ? a
Witness-_There is. '
Mr. Scazaver —And a long conversation ensok with lke.•
Porter at her house ?
Witnear—l recollect one part of the book where oho WOO ea
Mn. Porter.
111 r. ScaatErr—Look at page 121, where Mew Porter is mall
to say, " My clear Lord, what would I not do to serve you? 'I will'
pay Harriette a visit early todnortow morning, although, my Lord,
to tell you the truth; I was never half so afraid of any rowan is
my life." ' Is not that an account of her being procured lur lege,
to meet a gentleman ? ,
Witness—Yes, it is.
111 r. SCARLIETT—'I,IO2 at page 129'. Does the book Collit'll u
account of a person there called Julia, and of bee intermOrse with
Mr. Cotes?
Witness—lt does.
Mr. SCARLET T—Aod state 901110 particulars about &AMA shit.
case 9 .
Whom—Yes.
Mr. SCARLET'S—I dp not know what you may think of it, IMP
I ask you Is not the book hail of indecency ?
Witness—ln someyiarts it O, and in some parts it is not.
Mr. SCAZLETT—It is the history of ereourtesao and binomial*
is it not?
Witness—lt is.
Mr. SCARLET2-.Besides that, it contahts, dos h not, E(
names of a great many persona of &Unction ?
Witness—Yee, it does.
Mr. ficsizoorr —Pray O there any instance in whist do aw
scribes a Nobleman wishing to get her into the keeping 'ibis so r
The wiuoiss—There is en amount of Lord ......--,..
Mr. BCAILETT—I do 'sot mention omens Sir. I skin .4
follow Mr. Storkdale's unapt., by invent* faisehools, sad adds
4
ing names to tbena to give Met* the currency and apissersom
truths. Look at page 8, where it says " ---..--• woo 0
man s not one of your stiff-bleed, tmeratielefetberes who
chastity and forbearance to theirebildtwo. ite thesestramy ;
coagratulated hie friend —L., twin so 'a awe gene
Is AO that a statement of the Mud oadeyyOuide
tblwitiri to live with lila son?* i
Witness—b le, Sir. •
ldr. E. Thomas wee caned. On snoring the willgi
observed to bis Lonlabip that his owe wooed ou
of the work, sad by wished so know whether. k
teaming asp iloadOns tbst might be pot obits as,up die

t.--:=.=-.

~~ t
L
i

Gi ie. Bo apprehended it might be prejudicial to him in ease the
xfork were libellous, and would decline giving evidence it he
contd.
Itie Leifiri Cana JOSTICE said that aa.the appeal was matte
'is him. he crttainly was bound to tell the witness that he wits not
t.l Ors evidence under such circumstances, unless he
ple.rmd
The 'witness said he should certainly decline doing so, and intmo.
Moiety h•!t the bow.
The 1.000 CHIEF J 11,37 ICE observed that the plaintiff must in
tin.li:st place prove that the coovright was his I and secondly,
itt.st t .is was • work In lilt'+ the law WOlllll reerigni-e • man's
r.eht. Neither of these points hail been shown : for in his opinion
ima work Mat. suds wino flour' of Law could prom.
Mr. Buouttuast said that as 10 else tint obretion, he hod proved
that the plaititt:f was the original puolislier, and that if any °Wee-
;•en Wen to be made to the plaintiff's title, it ought to have ap-
W/TIKI en the record.
• That Lotus Chive Insesco—So it might, perhaps. Then'
the nommit must be taken on the second ground. It iv rti:c
afros that no person ran establish a legal title in a work of this na-
tal. Thy. 1 take it, ion agree with.
rant *Awes ohsesard that he slid, with this one distinction,
rest to all die cases in which he had been ahle to find such a des
t. ore art c. the ohiectiort had Arrays Imett taken he in *torment
I.tison, and not by t patty participating in the prat:. ..f tine int-
onaliestloo.
The Loon Inter Jcarterc said, that when a piny ram' istn
(*MITT 1/1. Law claiming the yid of tie his t• 1 ro.,tect his right*,
witist come for sorreiningieh4'l the flour.* of lotiv ivo.ll,t
11:tr. A wmk at this %intl.. profel.sin! to be the life of a roone..lo—
&lt. 111201:411AM-1'11A 11110 soy. it possesses a few
lost and thereof an immossi troth:nes.
The I.or. D CH IF F JUSTICE—The professed object of the
work li to give the life of a woman of an ahstitioned character, anti
is therefore disingui,hable from those in wide:is:ea passages of an
nmoral otitis,* incident illy occur.
Mr ticant.t-yr Wag most analogs, my Lord, to have that
distinction expressed, in order to vindicate the literature of Om
e-untry•from the strong imputation that had been east upon it hi
Dry Learned Friend. It was the very object and design of the
writer of this work to detail the infamous amoura of au immoral
he LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the plaintiff must be non.
suited.
ANT. BROUGHAM asked his lordship to gire him leave to move
for a new trial on the first point.
Lenin Cutts' JUSTICE aCtIIII4 to do an. because his
opinion was 1111 decidsd upon toe question. But Mr. Brougham
hid a right to move, n icott.r of course, if he thought proper.
The plaintiff was then •-.oatuited.

eat
I