The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-05 00:00:00

01 tne Absolute Power, r. specting► the sun ui 1,110
whom oar Lezitimist journals call merely Bernadotte, as they
they call the Prince Royal Duke of Chartres.—Le Commerce

FRENCH FUNDS -Putts, Arty 1.
Five per Cents., 110 f. 100 f. 95c. 110 f. lee. 20c.
Four and a Helper Cents. 101 E 60c,
Four per Cent., 1001. ICc. 100 f.
1 hr, per Cents., 721. 95c. 791.
Rank Actions, 2,387 f. 50c. 2,405 f. 2,410 f.
Rentc de Naples, 97f. 4: c. 40c. 45c.
Roman Five per Cents., 101
Spanish Actives, 24 2374 21.
Spanish Passives, 5304.
Belgian 1.03 n, Five per Cents, 102.
Belgian Bank, 1,410 f.
Portuguese Loan, Three per Cents, 17%6.
Haytian Loan, 295 f. 300 f.
EXCHANOIR ON LONDON.
One month, paper, -c. -c.; money, 25C 47%c.
Three months, paper, -1. -c. ; money, 25f. 27y4c.
-fours Authentioue.
LAST PRICES.
Five per Cents., 1101. 45c.
Three per Cents. 791. 25c.
Bank Actions, 2,410 f.
Roman Five per Cents., 101 34.
Belgian Loan, 102.
Belgian Bank, 1,410 f.
Portuguese Three per Cents., 27%.
Spanish Actives, 24.
Spanish Passives 5%.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
DAY V. WHITTAKER AND ANOTHER—PIRACY.
Sir WM. FOLLETT (with whom was Mr. BAILLY) stated the
case. The action was brought by Mr. C. W. Day, an artist,
and the author of a work entitled " Hints on Etiquette,"
against the defendants, Whittaker and Co., for exposing for
sale a work entitled " The Science of Etiquette," which the
plaintiff alleged was copied from his work. The sole question
the Jury would have to try in the present case would be,
whether the work entitled " The Science of Etiquette" was a
piracy upon the work called " Hints on Etiquette." The
latter work had been published by Longman and Co. in the
year 1834, and since then it had gone through not less than
twelve editions, and 12,000 copies bad been sold at 2s. 6d.
each, and a considerable profit had been made. A statement
had been made shortly after Lord Chesterfield's letters were
published, that one could not go into a shop without
finding the shopman or shopwoman reading them, and
that every clerk, the moment he left his desk, took it
up. He ( Sir W. Follett) knew not whether the readers of
the " Hints on Etiquette" were of the same class, but it was
certain that it was very extensively read and its sale had been
very profitable. The question then was, whether the persons
who had employed Whittaker and Co. had attempted, under
colour of making another book, to copy the plaintiff's work—
whether they had attempted to avail themselves of the labours
of the plaintiff, and endeavour to get into the market at an
under price, and thereby injure the sale of the plaintiff's work?
They had endeavoured by selling at a cheaper rate to obtain a
circulation for the spurious work at the expense of the plain-
tiff. The defendants had pleaded first that they had not
pirated the work ; and, secondly, that Mr. Day was not the
author of the " Hints on Etiquette." Now he ( Sir W. Fol-
lett) would show that Mr. Day was a person of considerable
acquirements ; that he had travelled a good deal, and that in
the year 1832 he was in the north of England, and on one
occasion some discussion having taken place relative to the
manners and usages of society, Mr. Day turned his thoughts
to the subject, and in consequence wrote first a small
werk, which was published by Mr. Craig, a bookseller
of Hull. That work had a great deal of circulation there.
Mr. Day afterwards came to London, and obtained from a
gentleman of his acquaintance a manuscript written by a lady
of rank, and that, with several additions made by Mr. Day
himself, was then published under the title of " Hints on Eti-
quette," and upon that work a eoasiderable profit was made.
An agreement was subsequently entered into between the
plaintiff and Messrs. Longman and Co., the publishers, on the
18th October, 1836, by which they agreed to publish the
" Hints on Etiquette," and after deducting all expenses cf
publication, the profits arising from the sale should be divided
into two equal parts—one to be given to the author and the
other to Messrs. Longman and Co. Under that agreement,
the plaintiff was entitled to one-half the profits, which amounted
to a considerable sum, and that book being so pubiished, and
having that large sale, certain publishers in Glasgow, named
Reid and Co., thought it wouid be a good specuLtion to make
a profit of, and they accordingly published a work called the
" Science of Etiquette," which they sold at Is., being much
cheaper than the plaintiff's work, which was sold fur 2i. 6'.1.
Now it was obvious that if the two publications were similar,
the sale of the plaintiff's works must be injured, and he would be
thereby prevented from making that profit he otherwise would
receive. The jury would first obser% e the form of the work
and manner in which it was printed; they had endeavoured
as far as in them lay to deceive the public by representing it
as the same work. The plaintiff's was entitled " flints on
Etiquette, and the Usages of Society, by Agogos," the mean-
ing of which he (Sir NV. Follet.) did nut exactly understand,
and he knew not whether the Learned Judge could assist him.

Lord DENMAN—No ono ought to know better than Sir W.
Follett.

Sir W. FOLLET r knew that it was a Greek word, but he had
really forgotten to ask its meaning.—( A laugh. )
Lord Das MAN—I take it to signify 44 Leader."
Sir W. FOLLETT—Thy motto was, " Manners make the
man. " The defendants called their work " The Science of
Etiquette," and they assumed also a Greek word of which he
was also ignorant, " by Astyos." The plaintiff took the motto
of the Winchester school, and the defendants following his ex-
..•mple took that of Eten—"Eniollit mores,nec sinit esse feros."
The Learned Counsel here proceeded to point out the arrange-
ment of the woe: into introduction, chapters on visiting, dress,
d meing, fashion, and all of which were copied in the
arrangement of the defendant's work ; in fact they had taken
its arrangement as closely as possible. Then as to the mat-
ter, the Jury would find that in several passages it was copied
almost word for word. The Learned Coons •1 here read a
variety of passages to show that the one work had been copied
°
from the other. It was unnecessary to go further to show the
similarity, and he would not therefore detain them by showin,,
that both works had hit upon the advice that
peas might b 2
eaten with a desert s,oou"--,,-(Great laughter),—and that
bread for the dinner table shout l he cut in cubes of one and
half inches thick._( Mitch laughter),—or that in going do
s airs you should give ladies the wall ; but to show the com-
wn
plete identity of the two he should read to them an advertise-
ment published in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, as follows :
e• This day is published, The Science of Etiquette. The
work contains a careful digest of the rule: of good conduct in
polite society, and embraces every maxim essentially good
contained in the book called Hints on Etiquette." Tile con-
sequence of that had been that very serious injury had re-
sulted to the plaintiff; and although the work was of the cha-
racter described, the property was to the plaintiff a very valu-
able one. He understood that the defence set .up would be
that the subject of etiquette was such, that if two persons sat
down to write upon it, the rules were so clear and defined, that
they could not avoid writing the very same words. It was quite
true that any two persons had a right to write upon the same
subject, but no one had a right to adopt the arrangement, the
tnoughts, and the very words of another. One of the most
valuable copyrights of the day was a work upon Cookery, which
had been sold to Mr. Murray by Mrs. Rundell, of Ludgate-
hill, for a small sum. Now any person might write upon that
subject, but no one had a right to take up and copy that work
in its arrangement or words. He did not believa that the
science of etiquette was more clear or distinct than any other
subject, and therefore it could not be said that if two persons
wrote upon the subject they should necessarily write the very
same words. The two works would be put into the hands of
the Jury, and it would he for them to say whether the one was
not a copy or imitation of the other. With respect to the
authorship he should prove that the work had been originally
published by the plaintiff at Hull, and subsequently in Lon-
don—he should prove the agreement with Messrs. Longman,
and then they would have to decide whether or not one was
not an imitation of the other. If these facts were established,
then the Jury would be entitled to find a verdict for the
plaintiff. _

John Craig—l am a bookseller at Hull. I know the plaintiff,
Mr. Day. In the year 1834 I saw the plaintiff on the subject
of publishing a book for him. He brought me the manuscript
which was in his hand-writing. I printed the book, which was
called " Hints on Etiquette." The book now handed rne.is a
copy of it. I did not purchase the copyright. The work was
published on account of Mr. Day,
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY. GENERAL—Part of the
motto is " to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."—( Laugh-
ter.) Mr. Day is a pertrait-painter, and goes about exercising
his profession. He (I'd not tell me whether it was at Hull he
acquired his knowledge of etiquette. It was intended as a ca-
ricature of the inhabitants of Hull. He said the people of
Hull were rather rude and barbarous, and that he intended to
civilize them.—( Great laughter.) Ile has not seen a Hull
merchant pick his teeth with a fork since. 'Witness knows
Greek, and understands the motto " Agogos," which signifies
leader. The plaintiff gave the motto " a silk purse out of a
sow's car." He maid he intended to make the people of Hull
more gentlemanly. It had not a great sale ; it was sold at
The plaintiff had been several times at Hull. Ile told me ho
had been abroad very much.
William Longman, examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL
—I am a partner in the firm of Longman and Co. I be-
came a partner eight or ten days ago. The firm have an
agreement with the plaintiff that they shall share the profits of
the publication in question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the examination of
the witness, inasmuch as he had a direct interest in the result
of the trial.

Witness—The articles are not yet signed, but there is an
understanding that I shall be a partner fie n the 21st of June.
I have an interest in every work published by the firm. My
father is one of the head partners, and four or five months ago
I first spoke about 13:comiag a partner. The articles will be
signed in a month or six weeks, but I consider myself a
partner. . _ _

• Sir W. FOLLETT contended that there sacs nothing elicited
to prevent the witness being examined. The witness was riot
a partner, nor could not compel the exccutiun of the articles
of partnership should the firm refuse. The arrangement or
understanding was merely prospective whatever it was.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL, for the defendants, submitted
that the witness was incompetent. There was an express
verbal agreement b;.‘tween himself and his father that he should
become a partner from the 21st of June, and f.om thence he
was to take an interest in all the works published by the firm.
The amount of. the witness's profits, from the 21st of June,
would be materially affected by the result of the present trial.
Lord DENSSAN was inclined to think the witness had an in-
terest, but at the same time he thought his evidence might be
received ; and the Lord Chancellor, before whom there was
a suit pending, would give it its proper weight. He would at
the same time take a note of the Attorney-General's objection.
The:examination then proceeded.—Witness had seen the
plaintiff
in December, 1836. The manuscript of the work is
in plaintiff's handwriting. Some additions and alterations

were made by the tirm. 'rue tw cum °thaw, ut the work
was now selling, and about 11,000 copies had been sold. It
left a very considerable profit.—[The agreement between
Longman and Co. was then handed to th witness.] First
saw the wild( called " The Science of Etiquette" in June,
1836. The matter and arrangement of the work appeared to
be same as the work " Hints en Etiquette." Saw an adver-
tisemcnt in " Tait's Magazine," in November last.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Mr. Day
showed me a printed book when he brought the manuscript.
I suggested the omission of " the silk purse." I never
heard of the work called " Hints on the Improvement of the
Manners and Appearance of both Sexes." I never saw a work
called " A System of Etiquette." I know the work called
" Instructions on Etiquette, intended for the use of Schools
and Young Persons." I have heard of a book called " Prin-
ciples of Politeness." The Gentleman and Lady's Book of
Politeness and Propriety of Deportment," is a book I have never
heard of. I know " The Secretary's Assistant," published by
Whittaker and Co. I know ".The Laws of Etiquette," it is
an American work. I had not seen it before Mr. Day came
to me.

By Sir WILLI 41i1 FOLLETT --AVC took proceedings in Chan-
cery against the publisher of the work called " Instructions on
Etiquette," and were successful.
Rd. Fraukum—l am a surgeon. I have known the plairtiff,
Mr. Day, for several years. I saw him in 1834 or 1835, and
he then showed me a book he had published at Hull. The
book now handed me is the work. The work published in
London is the same as the Hull edition, with some additions
and enlargements. I assisted the plaintiff with some private
manuscript which was in my possession. I have seen the work
called " A Science of Etiquette." The matter and arrange-
ment are very similar.
_ _

Cross-esainined by the ATTORNEY- GENERAL—I supplied tl:e
passages marked by an asterisk. "Of those passages marked
v6th an asterisk the ground-work has been taken from the
manuscript note-book of a lady of rank." I supplied that ma-
nuscript, and authorized him to state that they were taken from
the note-book of a lady of rank. I have a strong objection to
mention the name of the lady. I feel myself placed in a very
delicate situation, and don't wish to do it.

Lord DENMAN—I am afraid you must.
Witness—The Hon. Lady Murray is the person. There
are a great many writers upon the same subject. I have seen
" The Laws of Etiquette."
By Sir W. FOLLETT—I had the MS. in my possession
about six months before I gave it to Mr. Day. I received it
from the lady herself.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--" Do not pick your teeth much
a• table, as, however satisfactory a practice to yourself, to wit-
ness is not a pleasant thing." That is marked with an as-
terisk ; and is that from the lady of rank's note book ?
Witness—l cannot find that passage.
Wm. Henry Landon—l am an author on a very small
scale.—(A laugh.) I have seen the plaintiff's work, and
" The Science of Etiquette." I have compared the two
b )oks.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the witness being
asked if one appeared to be copied from the other.
Witness—The arrangement of both appears to be similar.
I have seers " The Laws of Etiquette."
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—I have never
published anything but Sermons, at the request of my parish.
'there are few chapters in one without a similarity to the other.
The Scotch work appears to have borrowed its hints on man-
ners from the English work, and its anecdotes from the Ame-
rican work. The English work resembles the American only
in as far as a work upon the same subject might resemble
another.

Have you read Lord Chesterfield's Letters ?—Some
of them.

Probably they were not such as a gentleman of your
varied calling would think proper to read ?
Lord DENMAN—That he could only learn by reading
them.—(A laugh.)
It was admitted by the defendants that they had sold copies
of the works in question.
Mr. Singer examined by Mr. BAILEY—Was an author. Had
seen and compared the " Hints" and the " Science of Eti-
quette." He found a great similarity in the words.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Was author
of " Travels in Egypt," and other works. He bad travelled
there before he published—(A laugh)—among the Turks,
&c., who allowed their beards and mustachios to grow and
his had grown ever since.—(The witness was bearded like a
pard.) Some of the rules contained in the " Hints" were
contained in old Greek authors, but not the whole of them.
The Officer of the Court then read portions of the plaintiff's
book, the Jury having the defendants' in their hands, in order
to compare them.
This was the plaintiff's case. •
The ATTORN El - GENERAL said the plaintiff's Counsel had
finished his case by comparing the table of contents of the two
works, in order to show that two works upon the same subject
contained the heads of chapters under the same names ; be-
cause of that simple and unavoidable fact tine Jury were called
neon to find that the defendant's work was a piracy. In piece
of the two books treating upon the science of etiquette, they
had treated upon the science of arithmetic, there must then
have been a still closer resemblance between the table
of contents, for in such a case he would undoubtedly have
found in each the heads of addition, of subtraction, of multi-
plication and so on, down to decimal fractions, and yet the
works would not necessvily be a piracy. This science of
etiquette was formed upon general rules laid down by the
general desire to oblige and not to offend, which happily pre-
vailed in society. It had its particular rules, which were
known to almost all ; they were of en arbitrary character, and
wise ever there were two works upon such a subject, there
must necessarily be a very great resemblance. He at
once admitted that there was a resemLlance, but that was not
the question before the Jury—it was whether the work in
question was cr was not a piracy of the work of Mr. Day.
Now, who was Mr. Day ? Was he a second Beau Nash, who
had for half his life presided as master of the ceremonies at
Bath ? Had he ever been master of the ceremonies at any
of the fashionable watering places ? Had he ever been a
dancing master ? No ; he was an itinerant painter of
'pictures-most respectable in his profession he had
no doubt—but, then, how much was he fitted to
decide upon manners and etiquette? It appeared that Mr.
Day, being at Hull, was horrified at the vulgarity of the incr.
chaets of that busy place. He probably found them guilty of
the profanity of picking their teeth at dinner ; and being
shocked, he determined to " make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear" by reforming the manners of the Hull merchants. Well,
he set about the matter, and no doubt he read works upon the
subject and compiled his work from private authors. Hi 3
book was nothing but a compilation, and so was the defen-
dant's. • His Learned • Friend proved that Mr. Day
gave a manuscriet of the work to the bookseller at Hull. No
doubt he did; but of what value was that ? Mr. Longman,
who was a plaintiff—a witness in his own cause—proved that
Mr. Day gave him a manuscript of the work now in question,
and yet it was neither more nor less than a copy of the Hull
book, with a few alterations and additions. So much for the
manuscript. Then as to the witnesses who had been called.
Mr. Longman was, as he had already said, a plaintiff. Then
they had a traveller who had been among the Turks, and
might have been in the temple of Jupiter Ammon ;_ but he
was not studying etiquette there—he had not studied any
work upon the subject, except the two books now in question.
They next had the clergyman—the priest—whose duty
was to lead his parishioners to a better world ; he had
not read any modern works upon the subject, but surely
he had a more important duty to perform than to study the
science of etiquette. They had not had one witness called
who had been a reader of the modern works upon the science ;
they even did mot know that any such were in existence; they
dared not call a witness to say that Mr. Day's was a new
work—in fact they could not find one, for it was a mere com-
pilation, the same as Mr. Reid's. The law allowed such
things; it went ftwther, and it had bedn decided that the
abridgment of a work, even though all the spirit was retained,
was not a piracy. It was a most ridiculous action. Both
works were for the good of society, and there were plenty of
people of both classes who would purchase enough to cause a
sale for both works. Those who wanted fine paper, with gilt
edges, bound in fine silk, would take the work of the plaintiff;
while the other classes, who were contented with a greater
quantity of valuable matter on paper not gilt, and for a smaller
price, would go to the defendant's; there was plenty of room
for both; and should the verdict of. the Jury go with the
plaintiff, it would only give a monopoly to the aristocratic
work. Now, it was. very strange thatoeither the traveller nor
the clergyman, though they were competent witnesses upon
the subject, knew there were many modern works upon the
science—it was one of much importance to all classes—to high
and to low—a subject of much interest to every one, and did
they think that Mr. Day had been the first to open such a field
—that it had lain fallow until the vulgarity of the Hull
people had raised the ire of the itinerant painter, Mr. Day?
Such was not the case—he had a small library of modern
works from which both Mr. Day and Mr. Reid had com-
piled their works, and probably Mr. Reid may have is some
instances made use of Mr. Day's work, but that would not
constitute piracy, which the plaintiff must prove in order to
establish his right to the monopoly. He would show
that there was nothing original either in the compo-
sition or title of the work of Mr. Day, because be had
before him the following works :—" Hints for the improve-
ment of' the manners and aearance of both Sexes," " De-
tails of the Etiquette of Publicp Society," " The Gentleman
and Lady's Book of politeness and propriety of deportment
dedicated to the youth of both Sexes," by Mr. Clement, an
American Edition published at Boston, in 1833 ; " Principles
of Politeness and of knowing the world by the gentleman and
man of fashion," " System of Etiquette," " Instructions on
Etiquette intended for the use of schools and young
persons," and there was also a work, called " The
Secretary's Assistant," which was published by Mr.
Whittaker, the defendant, who had published various works of
this kind before, without any complaint ever having been
made. Thus there was a complete code, almost like the code
of Napoleon.
Lord DENMAN—A code of civil procedure.— (A laugh.)
The ATTORNEY •GENERA I,—A complete code, by which the
most rude person, by a little study and perseverance, might
become fit to appear in the genteelest society. He would
show all .those works to have been in circulation, and
well known, before the miniature painter thought of
leaving this legacy to the aldermen of Hull.--(Laughter.)
He would now give specimens of the use Mr. Day had made
of prior publications, and he thought the Jury would be of
opinion that Mr. Day had not much originality or invention
about him. His Learned Friend, in his opening, had dwelt
at some length on the direction as to bow a lady was to be taken
nut of a room, apd particularly about giving her the wall ; he
hid claimed that as the great discovery of the portrait painter.
andhied said that it was impossible that two persons should
have hit upon any thing so - refined and so exquisite ; and the
defendant having stated how a gentleman should conduct himself
under such circumstances, his Learned Friend had said-that
‘;,a an irrefra:;able imior 'it -the pirieyeseNow in the gene

Heenan and lady's book of politeness it was stated, "in de-
scending a stair-case we should give the side next the
wall to the lady whom we accompany, and we commonly
present to her the right arm," so that the maxim was
that the lady should generally have the right arm ; but in
descending the stair-case, it was so to be managed that,
right or left, the lady was to have the wall.—( Laughter.)
In the plaintiff's work it had been said that "at every
respectable house you will find silver forks," and in the
System of Etiquette " it was said, " Silver forks
are now common at every respectable table." What
did the Jury think of that as a specimen of pla-
giarism by the plaintiff from other authors ? Then his
Learned Friend had stated that one of the great novelties of
the plaintiff's work was that hint which had been
introduced by a lady of rank, namely, " never pick
your teeth at table with a fork ;" in the " Principles of
politeness," the maxim was, " when the table is cleared,
pick not your teeth unless others do."—(Great laughter.)
His Learned Friend thought he had got something quite ori-
ginal from his client under the head of "vulgar customs,"
but which was stolen from a book published by Mr.
Whittaker some years ago. The plaintiff in his work
deprecated the custom of females using the title
of their husbands, as marks of distinction, and
having printed on their cards, " Mrs. Captain Goats,"
Mrs. Doctor Borax," " Mrs. Colonel Piggins," Mrs.
Alderman Brown," &c.—(A laugh.) Now in the Secre--
tary's Assistant,' published by Messrs. Whittaker and Co., it
was stated that the assumption of any title by a female
such as that of Mrs. General So and So, or Mrs. Colonel So
and So, was evidently incorrect. This remark is equally ap-
plicable to the wives of Generals, Doctors of Divinity, Law,
&e., who have in some instances been designated by the
title of their husbands. The very idea of Mrs. British Consul,
or Mrs. Field Marshal, excites ridicule ; and yet the assunip.
tion of such titles would not be more inconsistent than those

before mentioned by the wives of Doctors and Generals.
Here was therefore a direct piracy, if such things were to
be called piracies, from a work of the defendalit's. Mr.
Day stated--" Do not repeat the devil's tattoo by
drumming with your fingers on the table ; it cannot fail to
annoy every one within hearing, and is the index cf a vacant
mind." In the " Principles of Politeness," it was stated
that " drumming with your fingers on the table, are
indications of contempt for the persons present ; there-
fore should nut be indulged in." The Learned Attorney
General then read several other extracts from the ptaintiff's
work, comparing them with passages in other works, and
asked the Jury whether it was possible for them to say
tho defendants work was a piracy of the plaintiffs more than
the plaintiff's was a piracy of preceding publications ? Then
something had been said about the binding of the two works,
but the affidavit of the book-binder stated that he had never
received instructions from the publisher to use cloth of a blue
colour, or of a particular pattern. There were several chap-
ters in " Tho Science" which he admitted were similar to
those in the " Hints on Etiquette," but others which were to-
tally different. lie would contend that both the works were com-
pilations: if the verdict of the Jury was against them, they would
be prohibited from Felling a single copy of the work, but he
trusted the Jury would find the other way, and thus en-
able his client to resume the publication of a most useful and
valuable work.

Thomas Munday—l am a partner in the firm of Dean and
Munday, Threadneedle-street. la April, 1834, Heath offered
a manuscript work for publication, which was subsequently
published.

Mr. Sutor, a bookseller, of Paternovter-row, has known the
works, the " Principles of Politeness" and the " System of
Etiquette" since 1814.
Mr. Kenneth, a bookseller, knows the American work, the
" Court of Etiquette." It was imported in September, 1836.
The, Gentleman and Lady's Book of Politeness" was im-
ported in 1834.
Mr. Gamblin, solicitor for the defendant—The extracts now
handed by him, and made from the plaintiff's work and from de-
fendant's book were correctly made. The copies were made
subsequently to the proceedings in Chancery. Made extracts
from six or seven books for that purpose. The books were
sent by the defendant.
Mr. Pigott: a publisher of Fleet-street—The book, " In-
structions on Etiquette," was published about 1824. The title
was altered to " Hints on Etiquette," and came out with a diffe-
rent binding. That was after the publication of the plaintiff's
work. The change of title occurred by mistake. Five copies
were sold, and they were restrained 'by an injunction from
selling any more. Witness has no cannec,ion whatever with
the defendant. " The Instructiins on Etiquette" went through
th ee or four editions.

By a Juror—The injunction was to restrain them from bind-
ing their work in a similar mariner to that of Longman and
Co., and from using their title.
Sir WILLIMst FoLLErr replied. The plaintiff complained
Ghat the dt.fqndants had pirated his work, and it was al-
'Ted, on the other side, that there was no piracy ; and
also, that if there had been any piracy, no injury had
resulted to the plaintiff. Now, will' respect to the latter,
the evidence of Mr. Longman went decidedly to esta-
blish the fact that the sale of the plaintiffs work bad
been considerably diminished. What that sale was
could be estimated from the fact, that from Oct , 1836, to June,
1837, not less than 12,000 copies had been sold. It was
quite plain that if the defcndat.ts publish d a book containing
" cvdrything that was substantially good" in the plaintiff's
work and a great deal more, fir a much lower price, the
plaintiff must be seriously injured. It was evident from the
nature of the advertisement put forward, that the defend-
ant, from the very first, intended to injure the plaintiff's work
and the binding and lettering of the work closely resembled
the original. Even the very Greek name, although altered,
was imitated. The Learned Cuunsel here read seviral ex-
tracts from the two works, to show their similarity. He would
now leave the issue in their hands. He was salificd the Jury
would have no doubt that it was an attempt to injure the pro-
perty of the plaintiff, and that he was entitled to the protec-
tion prayed for.
Lord DE MAN said that the issues they bad to try were,
first, whether the plaintiff was the proprietor or author of
the book in question, and to negative that several extracts
had been given from other works. The question then
was whether these extracts were so servile as to show that the
plaintiff had no claim to the title of author; and with respect
to the charge of piracy, they would have to say whether the
extracts read were such as to satisfy them that the one was an
imitation of khe other.
The Jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff.

COMMONCOUNCIL.--(TIIIS DAY.)

CITY ADDRESS TO TILE QUEEN AND QUEEN DOWAGER.

A Common Council was held to-day in the Guildhall of the
City of London for the, purppse of agreeing to an address of
condolence to her present Majesty upon the death of the late
King, and one of congratulation upon her accession to the
throne, together wit( an address of condolence to her Ma-
jesty the Qaecn Dowager upon the death of her late illustrious
consort. _

The Loan MAYOR took the Chair at 1 o'clock, and after his
Lordship had informed the Livory of the purpose for which
thleri were called together,
Mr. SALOMANS came forward to move the Address. He
should ill discharge the duty he had to perform, if be did not
dwell on the loss the nation had sustained by the death of bis
late Majesty, a Kiag who redly occupied himself during the
whole of his reign in advancing the prosperity of his country
—a King whose reign would bear comparison with that of any
Monarch that ever sat on the throne of England. During
his reign no foreign war or domestic disturbance had taken
place to interfere with its tranquillity; and William IV. might
well be said to have been really the father of his people.
The authority which he wielded had been transmitted to one,
of whom the nation had the highest expectations. Though
youthful, the present Queen of England had received her im-
pressions.and education in England ; and upon her accession
to the throne, she had boldly declared the principles that
would govern her future conduct. Coming to the throne at
so early an age, it was to be hoped and expected that her
reign would be long, happy, and prosperous.—(Cheers.)
The worthy gentleman concluded by proposing the fullowing
address :

" To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:—

" May it please your Majesty, —Nire, your -Majesty's faithful
and loyal subjects, the Freemen and Liverymen of London, in
Common Hall assembled, beg leave to approach your Royal
presence with the expression of our deep grief for the loss
which your Majesty and the nation have sustained by the death
of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, who by his firm
support of the Constitutional privileges of the people, and by
giving his Royal sanction to the introduction and passing of
the Reform Bill, and other measures for improving the insti-
tutions of our country, attached to himself the warmest affec-
tions of a grateful and loyal people, and earned for himself the
undying title of our patriot King.'

i; Mailst we bow with humilitiand resignation to the will of
the Supreme Dispenser of Events, in depriving us at this
moment of our beloved and patriotic Sovereign, we nevertheless
see abundant cause for thankfulness that that visitation has
been withheld until the period when your Majesty has be-
come qualified by law to exercise the sovereign power of
the State in your own person—born in England, and edu-
cated in an attachment to British institutions and Bri-
tish interests, under the superintending care and fond soli-
citude of an affectionate parent. We hail with lively satis-
faction your Majesty's accession to the throne and the
recent gracious assurances of your Majesty that, associating
with all classes, it is your Majesty's anxious desire to extend
to all the full enjoyment of their religious principles and their
civil rights. And we fervently pray, that animated by the
example of our late lamented King, and rightly appreciating
the advantages of our constitutional Monarchy, your Majesty's
life may long be spared to realize those advantages for
the public welfare, and that by a steady attachment to the
interests of all classes of the community, a wise and tem-
perate administration of the laws, and a determination to
improve to the utirmat practicable extent the institutions of
the country, your Majesty may live to see the accomplishment
of your earnest desire—the noblest ambition of Princes—to
reign in the hearts and affections of a free, a happy, and
united people."
JonN TRADERS,- Esq. seconded the Address,
Which was declared by the LORD MAYOR to be carried
unanimously. •
CHARLES BLEADEN, Esq. moved the following Address of
Condolence to the Queen Dowager : ---
May it please your Majesty, we the Freemen and Livery-
men of London in Common Hall iasembled, beg leave to
offer the expression of our sincere condolence with your Ma-
jesty and the nation on the less vrehave sustained by,the death
of his late Majesty King William the Fourth.
" Whilst we cordially sympathise in the feelings entertained
on the present melancholy occasion, by your Majesty, and
those who were the immediate observers of the friendly dispo-
' sition -and manly frankness which distinguklied our late belovcd