The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-02 00:00:00

SHERIFFS' COURT.

TIIE CARTE DE VISITE OF R.R.11, THE DUKE Or
CAMBRIDGE.—SINGULAR CASE.—MAULL AND ANOTHER
v. GLASS.—This was an action to recover £lO damages for
an illegal infringement of tho carte do visite of his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
Mr Bowen May appeared for the plaintiffs, the eminent
photographers ; Mr. L. H. Lewis representing defendant,
an artist, of Cheapside.
Mr May, in opening the case on behalf of plaintiffs, said
he appeared as the advocate of the Photographic Associa-
tion, but plaintiffs, although they belonged to it, were fight-
ing the present case singly, and to protect themselves
against piracies. There could be no doubt that plaintiffs
had suffered to the extent of £lOO, but they only went in
this instance for £lO, so that for the future it might be
understood these piracies might not be carried out with
impunity.
Mr Maull said—This is the carte de visite of ibis Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who sat to my firm for it.
It was taken August 11, 1E62, and it was duly registered.
We are the owners of the negative and copyright. This is
the piracy copy no doubt taken from our original. His
royal highness gave us permission to publish the carte de
visite, and I have no doubt this was copied from it. There
are accessories in this picture whch would not be in the
possession of any one else.
By his Honour—I mean the carpet, table, &c.
By Mr May—First knew defendant was soiling them in
September.
Cross •examined—The Duke sat on August 11. He sat at
my request. e considered it a great benefit. The Duke
did not pay for his sitting, but he paid for the copies. He
paid £4 4s for 100 copies. I have not authorised the Pho-
tographic Association to mention my name. I left the mat-
ter in Mr May's hands. Ido not recollect that defendant
wrote a letter disclaiming all knowledge of the sale.
Re-examined—His royal highness paid no fee. Wo simply
of üblication.
request a sitting for the purpose p
Mr Fox (plaintiff's manager) proved purchasing the copies
produced at defendant's shop. There is no doubt of the
piracy. lam an operator. We sold 8,000 to 9,000 portraits
of Garibaldi in ten days,
Cross-examined—Plaintiff has published another portrait
of the Duke of Cambridge in his military dress. I should
think 3,000 of the military portrait were sold. I believe the
Duke sat to another photographer some years ago.
His Honeur—Do you object that they are not authors ?
Mr Lewis—That is one of the objections.

Mr Maull (recalled by Mr Lewis)—We took ten nega-
tives. Two negatives were taken representing his royal
highness in the same position.
Mr Nottage, manager of the City Stereoscopic Company,
in Cheapside, said this copy is evidently a copy of the plain-

tiffs.
Mr May—l believe that you have lately taken a carte of
Lord Palmerston
His Honour—Oh, we have nothing to do with Lord
Palmerston.
Mr Lewis called his Honours attention to the act, and his
Honour said there seemed to be a difficulty in the act.
Mr. Lewis contended that there was no case, and quoted
the Ist section of the act, by which it would be seen that
before plaintiff could have any authority to claims on
copyright he must have the permission of the Duke of Cam-
bridge in writing. Now, plaintiff.; had only a verbal per.
mission, and could not claim to be the proprietors.
Mr May contended that the negative never belonged to
the Duko of Cambridge, who had merely bought copies as
an ordinary purchaser.
Mr Lewis— Then it came to this, that any person's photo-
graph might be produced whether he liked or not.
His Honour—That would be so. The Act is very indis-
tinct. I must take a note of objections. The fact is, there
was no agreement in writing.
The payment afterwards by
his royal highness made a good consideration. The sitting
of the Duke was also a good consideration.
Mr Lewis—Then there was no registration in accordance
with the terms of the act. The time of the first publication
is not registered as required.
His Honour—This is not driving a coach and six through
an act of Parliament, but several railway vans. I think
sees. 6 and 11 are incorporated.
Mr Lewis—l contend that the author of a photograph is
the person who site.
His Honour—Unless it be the sun: The object of regis-
tration is to give notice to whom the property belongs.
Mr. May argued upon the objections.
His Honour—l think the objection upon the registration
and there being two negatives is fatal.
Mr Lewis then addressed the jury as to the damages, in
the event of a verdict being passed for plaintiff.
The jury found for the 410 claimed, and his Honour
reserved his judgment.

MARKETS—This Day.