The Sun.
London, England, 1853-11-23 00:00:00

THE JURYMEN,

Whilst the jury in the last case was out of court, the
associate's clerk proceeded to call another jury, to try
the next case. It was found, however, that there were
not enough jurymen in court to form a jury.
His lordship, therefore, fined all those who were
absent in the penalties of 40s. ; and said that when he
again sat at Nisi Prius in the City, he would have the
panel called over the first thing in the morning, and fine
all who were then absent.

HAZLITT V. VIZETELLY.—ACTION FOR THE PRICE OF
TRANSLATING A FRENCH WORK.
the rice
p of a
This was an action to recover 751.,
translation from French into English of a " Life of
Louis the Seventeenth," and also one sheet of " Lamar-
tine's History of the Restoration."
Mr. Serjeant Thomas and another learned gentleman
la‘Lipea.ried for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant Byles and
11, arnara. appeared for the defendant.
It apapeenared that the plaintiff is a member of the bar,
who has been for many years engaged in literary pur-
suits, and especially in translating, and the defendent is
a printer in Peterborough-court, Fleet-street.
The plaintiff's case was that in the latter part of last
year he was employed by the defendant to make the
translation in question ; and it was agreed that he
should be paid at the same rate as he had been paid by
Messrs. Ingram and Cooke for similar work. Accord-
ing to this rate, the price for a work of the size of the
one in question was two and a-half guineas a sheet of
thirty-two pages, the number of sheets translated was
twenty-nine and a-half, which would make the amount
claimed 751. _

The plaintiff was examined in support of these facts,
and he proved that the work was done on the terms
stated, and that no complaint was made of the manner
in which it had been done.
In cross-examination, he admitted that only part of
the translation had been written by his own hand ; the
rest having been done by his son, and his cousin, a lady.
They generally wrote from his dictation ; and always
under his correction.
The defendants' counsel admitted that Mr. Hazlitt
himself was eminently qualified to perform the work
which he had undertaken ; but he complained that in
consequence of his having allowed other persons to do
part of it, there was so great a number of errors in the
translation as seriously to damage the work. That the
reader had corrected a great number of them whilst the
work was being put into type, and that a gentleman
named Short had been employed to go through the
translation again, and correct the errors which still re-
mained. That this was necessary in order to fit the
work for publication, and that the sum paid to Mr.
Short for his labour was 271. In addition to this that
the setting up of the work had cost 151. or 161. more
than it would have done if a proper translation had been
furnished at first. Mr. Vizetelly stated in his evidence,
that at the time he employed Mr. Hazlitt to do the
work, no mention whatever was made of price, and he
denied that any reference whatever was made to Messrs.
Ingram and Cooke, or to the price paid by them for
translators.
The jury found_ a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.