The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-25 00:00:00

AS:SIL

'MOE.

HOME CIRCITIT.—KINGSTON, MARCH 24.
XECTOALtIf V., PARKER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to rev r zer
a sum of 2001. from the defendant, under an agreer sent
entered into between them.
Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Denman were coi msel
for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. L ang,
and Mr. Colquhoun appeared for the defendant.
The case occupied the Court for several hours..
The plaintiff is a clergyman, residing at Oxford, and
who it appeared has been also extensively engage din
literary pursuits, and the defendant is the well-kn well-known
book publisher in the Strand. It seemed that abou t the
year 1847 the defendant entered into an engagereet it
with Mr. Parker, by which he engaged
,to translate
" Bahn's History of Roman Literature,' a Germ an
work, for the sum of 2001. ; and it appeared that he slid
not complete his work, which extended in quantity to
nearly two thousand octavo pages, until March, 1&51,
when he furnished the complete manuscript to the de-
fendant. No steps, it appeared, were taken to put it in
hand with a view to the publication, and the plaintiff in
consequence applied to Mr. Parker to know when he
might expect to have proofs of tne work to revise, and
the 'defendant excused himself for not going on with it
at this period, by stating that on account of the attrac-
tion of the Great Exhibition it was perfectly hopeless to
expect the public to read books. When the Exhibition
closed, Mr. Metcalfe again applied to the defendant upon
the subject, and he then wrote an answer stating that,
in the beginning of the year, he would put the work in
hand, and he would send him a proof. Up to this time
the_ defendant had never said a single word with regard
to the quality of the translation, or made the slightest
complaint relating to it ; but upon the plaintiff, after
waiting several months patiently and finding no steps
were taken to publish the work, again applying to the
defendant upon the subject, and asking for a cheque for
1001. on. account of the agreement entered into between
thern, the defendant returned the manuscript, stating
that, haying taken advice, he was of opinion that the
translation was not of a character likely to succeed, and
he therefore declined to publish it ;. this proceeding
being taken by him in October; 1852, nearly nineteen
months after, the manuscript had been first placed in his
possession. The plaintiff, under these circumsta,uces,
now• Sought to 'recover the sum which the defendant had
agreed to pay him for his 4ervices in making the transla-
tion, and upon his being examined he stated that he had
for fourteen years been acqUainted with and studied the
German langunge, and resided for several months in. the
country, and was perfectly versed in the language ; and
he deCilared that the translation was a correct one, and
in acco'r='dance with the agreement made' between him
an 4 thi,deftndant. The evidence of the plaintiff was
corrobOriated in this, respect by several gentlemen con-
nected with literary pursuits, all 'of whom stated that
the ;translation was a correct one, and such as would be
expfieted from a man of letters and a gentleinan.
Chainbera, oii the part of the defendant, said the
defenche.,was instructed to offer was that the transla-
tionliadbeen clone in a careless and hasty manner, and
that the plaintiff had not cOmplied with his undertaking
to furnish such a work as the defendant would be justi-
fied, having regard to his own interest; in offering to the
public. In 'support of this case he produced some Ger-
man and other witnesses, who stated that having re-
ferred casually to, different Portions of the translation,
they discovered what they described to be incorrect
translations of the German original, and they also com-
plained of the forms of expression made use of in some
instances by the plaintiff in his 'translation. Many of
the matters objected to, however, appeared to be of the
most trifling chiracter, and there was a total failure of
anything like evidence to show that the plaintiff had not
substantially performed the agreement he had entered
into. .

Mr. Bramwell; in the course of a very able reply upon
the case for the defendant, indignantly denounced his
conduct in setting up such a defence as most despicable
and disreputable, and said that it was such a one as
would have been heard of only in the worst days of spe-
cial pleading. Here was a gentleman engaged for nearly
four years in the laborious task of translating a work of
this character for the paltry sum of 2001., which would
not amount to more for each page, when printed, than
a law-writer's clerk would charge for copying it ; and
when he asked for the miserable recompense to which he
was entitled, he was met by the defendant alleging that
the translation was incorrect and worthless. He con-
sidered this proceeding was most disgraceful, particularly
when it appeared that the manuscript had been for more
than eighteen months in the defendant's possession, and
it was only at the fast moment, when he possibly might
have imagined that to publish the work would not be
profitable, that he put forward such a defence. As to
the evidence which had been given with regard to the
errors which it was said appeared in the translation, he
said it was most contemptible, and he hactno doubt that
there were quite as many errors of such a character in
every work that was published, not only by Mr. Parker,
but by every other bookseller. He concluded by ,
ex-
pressing a confident opinion that the jury would say by
their verdict that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount
he claimed by the present action.
Mr. Baron Alderson had commenced summing up,
when the jury interposed and said they considered it
quite unnecessary for him to go through the evidence,
as they had unanimously agreed upon their verdict.
The learned Judge asked them what verdict they
gave ?

- The jury said they were all agreed in returning a ver-
dict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Henry attended, by appoint-
ment, at four o'clock, to deliver his decision in the case
of the Board of Inland Revenue against .Eclicarn True•
love, which was adjourned from Thursday last.
Mr. Tilslev, the assistant solicitor to the Board, at-
tended in the absence of Mr. Phinn, M.P. ; and Mr. J.
H. Parry appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Henry read his judgment as follows :- -The defen-
dant in this case was summoned at the instance of the
Board of Inland Revenue, to answer an information
which charged him with having, on the 23d of February
last, knowingly and wilfully sold a newspaper which was
not duly stamped, and the questions which I have to de-
cide are—first, whether the paper in question, which is
called the Potteries Free Free Press, and Weekly Narra-
tive of Current Events, is a " newspaper" within the
meaning of the Stamp Act ; and, if it be, whether the
defendant knowingly and wilfully sold it. In defining
what is a newspaper, I must be guided by the language
used in the schedule of the act 6th and 7th William IV.,
chap. 76, and by the construction put upon that language
by the Court of Exchequer, in giving judgment in the
case of the Attorney-General v. Bradbury. According
to the rule laid down in that decision, I think that a
newspaper liable to stamp duty may be described to be
" any paper containing public news, intelligence, or
occurrences, which is printed for sale, and published
periodically at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days."
The learned counsel for the defendant could scarcely con-
tend that the Potteries Free Press was not a newspaper
that would fall within this definition, and he therefore re-
lied more upon the argument that, inasmuch as certain
other weekly publications which he alleged to be news-
papers ejusdem generis were permitted by the Baard of
Inland Revenue to be published without a stamp, his
client was led to suppose that the Potteries Free Press
was not liable. With that view he referred to the
Athenceum, the Builder, and the Racing Times, and he
instituted a comparison between their contents and those
of the Potteries Free Press. It may be doubted whether
such evidence was strictly admissible, but I thought it
right to receive it, and having carefully looked through
all the publications referred to, I am of opinion that
there is a manifest distinction between them and the
paper in question. The Athenceum appears to be a paper
devoted to literary and the Builder to architectural sub-
jects, and the Racing Times seems to confine itself to
racing topics. An occasional paragraph may be found
in each of those publications, which may not have a close
affinity to the subject to which the paper professes to be
devoted ; and although it may be more prudent for the
proprietors to omit such paragraphs, I think that all
those publications are mainly, if not wholly, confined to
one particular or class subject, and cannot be said to
contain miscellaneous news ; whereas, the very title of
the Potteries Free Press, and Weekly Narrative of Cur-
rent Events, implies that it is published for the purpose
of narrating events generally, and not upon any class
subject ; and upon a perusal of the contents of the paper,
I am satisfied that it cannot fairly be considered as a news-
paper, ejusdem generis, with the publications to which it
was compared. The remaining question is, did the defen-
dant knowingly and wilfully sell an unstamped copy of a
newspaper, which the law required to be stamped It was
proved that upon two occasions unstamped copies of the
Potteries Free Press were purchased at his shop—upon
the first, from the defendant himself, and on the second
occasion, from peron serving in the shop, the defen-
datntoth 's name being still over the door • and upon looking
at the foot of the
a bpies I find the defendant's name printed
pap,
Paper, as one of the London agents for
the sale of it. I cannot doubt, therefore, that he was
aware of the nature of the paper he so sold. An objec-
tion was taken that the defendant is not liable for
the
sale on the second occasion by his servant
but there are
several authorities to show that he is.
Vide the cases of
w 311), the Attorney-Gene-
Rex v. Dixon (3 Maule and Sel
Crompton and ;
.54211 r d the ral v. Siddon (1
charge laid in
Attor-
ney-General v. Riddell (2 Terwhitterv.)
the information having been thus establ'4htehdeaagreaineesnt mount
the
summons had been
defendant, it only remains for
Ifm ethteo
penalty which he should pay.
been
taken out against the proprietoratthaesresutioenarued have
no ground for any mitigation ;
was
evi-
dence to show that the defendant took any activeno pat
in originating this newspaper, I think that I may with
propriety exercise the power with which the act invests
me, to mitigate the penalty one-fourth, and I accordingly
order that the defendant shall pay the mitigated penalty
of 51. Before I conclude I think it right to notice a
complaint which was made by the learned counsel for
the defendant, that this case was not submitted to a jury.
The Stamp Act gives the Board of Inland Revenue the
option of proceeding either by information before ama s
trate, or by an information in the Court of Exchequer,
to be tried before a jury. If the latter course had been
adopted, a delay of at least three months must have
elapsed, inasmuch as there will be no sittings in that
Court for the trial of revenue causes until the latter end
of June, and no judgment could be entered up until No-
vember. I think it would have been an act of injustice
to the proprietors of all weekly newspapersovho pay
duty, if the Board of Inland Revenue were to allow an
unstamped newspaper to be published and sold every
week during such a long interval, when the act of Par-
liament provided an immediate remedy by laying an
information like the present. If the defendant should be
advised that the decision which I have given is not well
founded, it will be open to him to appeal against it upon
giving the requisite notice.
Mr. Parry, without intending the slightest disrespect'