The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-19 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Tits LORD CII•NICIILLOR. IN LINCOLN'S INN NALL, THIS Wit/

AT TIO.,

Ksp.Solarte re Daniell,
part beard
Clarke re Came-
den, per order
Money re filude.
ref order
!often re Arnold
Burel,h3rdt re
Ke:ty. 2 former
petitions
Terry re Lucas

Bankrupt reiltions.
Esp. criirma re kiln- Esp. Harper re Mara
Chin and Co.
Dalaraloe re Dal. Tuo.lins re Thai
amine Ilia
lil
Kirkpatrick re Colrr re Shop
Dennett hard
Ford re Ford CoNley re Halbert
Lryland re Mode Same re Same
Rolland re Mara,. Hall re Bytes
apd Co. Collier re Ship-
Hoiden re Bally bard
Pierce re Dine.

Col
Mr. Jostlee ffolroyd w
In the forenoon.

IL'RT OP K I:erre tIENCFt.
N1:1 attead Chambers, this day, at Eleven deicd!

LAW INTELLIGRATE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—FRIDAV, Ato. 10.
LITERARY PROPERTY—HARMAN V. TEGO.
This, it will be remembered, is a case in which the plaintiff, rell
proprietor of The Encyrhp-dio Meteopolitana, applied to the Court
for an inju elle to restrain the defendant front publishing Tire Los,.
Jens Encyclopedia, on the ground that many of the articles cone
tamed in it were pirated from the plaintiff's work.
Mr. Horton said the affidavits which his bord.hip had directed
to be made on the pelt of his client, Mr. Tegg, had been filed, and
he would now read them. Two long sffitlivite were then produced ;
the one that of the Reverend IThe Styles, and the other of the Rev.
Dr. Curtis, both of them contributors to different portions of Mr.
Tcgg's work, called The London Encyclopedia. The affidavit*
were read at length. hey admitted that some portions of the
plaintiff's work had been copied, but denied that it had been ear:
tied to the rcen• which had been alleged. In some instance* the
creepil rs of the Encyclop!dia .11c,ropolitana hid copied word for
word from the Edinburgh GiGudlcei, and because the defendant
hail taken from the sante work, they were said to have pirated thd
Plaintiff's wo-k, wit the plaintiff was the pirate in the fires
ineance. The same observation might apply to an infinity of
other parts of the work. The article, for instance, upon the
Arundelian Marbles," also said to have been copied, was taken
firm the Eitcyclopalia Perlhenx;s ; and another article was teakrt
rim Ilarriil ma's East Julian Guz.ltree. What, therefore, the
plaintiff' bed termed original matter, collected and put together
with infinite trouble and expense, turned oat to be servile Co.
lie.. and he defendant was to be accused of copying from three
mies, when he, as well as the plaintiff; might as easily consult
tie origins'. The Learned Counsel accompanied the reading of
these affidavits by some observations favourable to his client's case.
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL, on behalf of the plaintiff; said
he had sought in vain, either in the affidavits or the argilments, foe
die information required, namely, a simple answer to the simple
question whether the defendant, in the compilation of the London
Encyclopedia, had improperly availed himself of the work of the
plaintiff; or whether he bad depended solely open his own legiti;
mate taltnt and research ? The affidavit of Dr. Styles disavowed
any knowledge of the sources from whence a considerable portion
of the teener embodied in the London. Encyclopedia was drawn, it
having been put together by a subordinate person, who was not now
forthcoming. With regard to that part of the work of which the
Doctor pr feared to have been himself the compiler, his affidavit
c mailed a tall china statement, which it was his (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral's) they to expose. It is asserted that out of 52,1100 lines, to
which the London Encyclopedia emended, not more than 510 were
copied from the Encyclopedia ALrfropolilana. It was, however,
material t r observe that those 52,000 lines comprised four distinct
utiles or brandies of matter, namely, History, Science, Biography,
and Lexicography; whereas the piracies cemp!ained of were m.det
only from one of those tiranches, namely, that entitled Lexicogra-
phy. The statement therefore made by Doctor Styles was evasive,
tee ruse i might he the fact that the particular branch of the plain-
tiff's btok from which the piracies were made consisted only of
2,000 or 3,000 lines, and thus the extern of injury done by the de.
fendant would be much greater than what it was endeavoured to be
represented. Now, although a person engaged in compiling a ler&
body of information for the benefit of the public, was justified in
resorting, to a certain extent, to the works of his predecessor,, yet
he was not at liberty to use them without limit, or in such a Tan-
ner as to entrench upon the rights of the authors. it had been
argued that the plaintiff; who had been guilty of literary larceny,
was himself guilty of a similar offence towards other.. Now, even
supposing that to be so, it was not for the defendant to come for-
ward to vindicate such conduct, or to set up the injuries done to
others as a justification of his own misconduct.
The Loon CHANCELLOR said that the argument was effectual
to this extent—that the plaintiffs had no right to complain of the
defendant taking from his book those articles which he had himself
copied from the works of other; ; the effect of which would be to
reduce the quantity of piracy on the part of the defendant. Be-
sides, if any analogous case had been decided, this circumstance
would, in sonic degree, go to show what a man might legally do.
and what he might not. There was a difficulty that had occurred
to him as to the terms in which the injunction should be
penned, seppoehrg the piracy to be established against the de.
tendant to a certain extent. If the piracy were to be proved as to
six Ile seven article., it would be easy for the Court to prohibit the
defendant from publishing those articles ; but he did not conceive
his power to extend to the prohibition of the publication of the
whole work, on account of those six or seven articles.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL submitted that it would be con.
nary to the whole course of the practice of this Coutt, and to the
peinciples recognized by it, to grant a partial injunction. If the
main charge were established, it was not competent for the Court to
distinguish between that part of the work which was, and that
which was not piracy, so as to give the party permission to publish
so much, and no more; but it would grant that process which in
its extent went effectually to protect the rights of the. injured
parties.
Mr. SPENCE followed on the same side, and pointed oat a
great variety of other instances of piracy, which had been dis.
covered since the first hearing of the case. He argued, that the
discrepancies and alterations attempted to be shown on the other
side were mere cloaks to cover the piracy of the defendant ; and con.
eluded by proposing to accept such an injunction, whether general
or limited, as the Court should deem must conducive to the ends of
justice and the rights of the parties.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—But the Solicitor-General has
stated that there is no such thing in this Court as a limited in.
junction.
Mr. SPENCE.—With all deference to the Solicitor-General, I
would much rather have the opinion of his Lordship on the sale.
ject, whose authority was much greater in this Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the very same question arose in
a case before Lord Kenyon, who said the difficulty with him was
whether he could do so or not without prejudicing either patty.
Lord Kenyon, in delivering judgment, stated a case where Lord
Bathurst had granted an injunction for part. It would beg strange
thing that a parson should be restrained from printing eleven.
twelfths of a work to which he had both &legal and equitableright,
because it happened that he had no right to print the other one-
twelfth part. Such a principle could not be maintained, and in all
his own decisions upon the subject he had acted upon a different
principle. It was usual in actions at law to insert a count in the
declaration, first for damages for printing the whole work, and
then for a part ; and if so, it surely was quite equitable to limit the
injunction to that part only which was proved to be pirated. The
great difficulty was how to do justice to the plaintiff-without grant.
ing the injunction, supposing the plaintiff should succeed in esta-
blishing his right in a Court of Law.
Mr. LonAINE said he was also on the same aide, but was afraid
his Lordship would consider it inconvenient for him to address tire
Cour.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I shall be glad to hear you, Sir.
The case is a very important one, and cannot be argued too much.
In the case of Miller and Tonson, which was heard before Lord
Hardwick, in 1751, that Learned Judge gave the Counsel just
twelve moults to enable themselves to argue the case ; a sort of
thing whick would now-a-days amount to impeachable matter.
Mr. LORAINE then quoted further instances of piracy, and pur-
sued the maw line of argument with the preceding Counsel.
Mr. HORNE, in reply, complained of the course taken by the
other side, they having in fact opened an entirely new case, Wetted
of confining themselves to the affidavits before the Court. But
notwithstanding the long speeches that had been made, he did not
consider the plaintiffs case to be at all strengthened either in fact
or in law. The ease being so doubtful as to the right of the plain-
tiff' to the copyright of the work, he hoped his Lordship would
decline to interfere, but would leave the parties to their legal re.
needy of going before a Jury. At all events, should his Lordship
think fit to act otherwise, he trusted h would only be to direct the
defendant to keep an account of the profits on the sale of the work
until the question should be tried. The defendant was an indivi.
dual whose whole property was embarked in this concern, while
the plaintiffs were twenty-two or twenty.tbree in number, and per.
sons of large capital ; granting the injanction, therefore, would
press most injuriously upon the defendant.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said this Mae having takes two days
in argument, and he being of opinion that many of the facts were
rew and important, he should certainly take till tomorrow to am-
id ler of it. He could not absolutely premise his judgment then,
but if he did not give it to-morrow moenlig, he should certainly
give it on Monday.
WELLE4LEV r. THE DUEL Ole bEAneotte.
Mr. HART addressed his Lordship this mooting on his entering
the Court, upon the subject of the guardianship of Mr. Wellesley's
children. In doing so, however, he wished his Lordship to under.
stand that it was not intended to represent the case es exenetingly
pressing, although Mr. Wellesley was impressed with a firm con-
viction that the care under which his children were at present
placed was as misehievous as it could possibly be. For this reason
he was desirous that his Lonlehip should ptooouuce his judgment
at as early a period as possible.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—I have certainly not delayed the
judgment for want of attention to this ease, but fur reasons which
ought to have been perfectly satisfactory to all parties. If the
present guardianship of the children is improper, I will make that
the subject of my immediate attention.
Mr. HART begged not to be understood as speaking in dispa-
ragement of the Misses Long, under whose care the children were
placed; much less did he mean to make any reflection oo their con.
duet or character. But his Lordship knew that frequently a want
of discipline was as pernicious as evil example. No km:nom:an
was intended to became upon the moral character of the ladles ; bit
hi! assured his Lordship such was the impreseio lien the mind of
Mt. Wellesley with reference to the manner in which his chid a