The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-08 00:00:00

WILLIAMS V. ELLIS.

This was an action brought by Mr. Robert Folkstone
Williams, to recover a sum of seventy pounds, which he
alleged to be due to him for work and labour, in the pro-
duction of a book entitled " An Historical Sketch of the
Art of Sculpture in Wood," which he had undertaken at
the request of the defendant, Mr. Ellis, a silversmith, resi-
ding in the neighbourhood of Oxford-street.
Mr. Sergeant STORKES said, that in the beginning of the
last year the defendant and two other persons, a Mr. Smith
and a Mr. Hansell, the one an undertaker and the other
an upholsterer, purchased some antique statues, beautifully
executed in wood by a foreign artist of celebrity, and ex-
hibited them in Bond-street, with a view to their ultimate
sale. The plaintiff was employed to write paragraphs for
the newspapers, in the first instance laudatory of the exhi-
bition ; and, finally, he was instructed by the defendant to
prepare a brief account of the statues to be published for
distribution amongst those who visited the exhibition. This
pamphlet the plaintiff accordingly prepared, but circum-
stances arising which rendered a more elaborate description
necessary, the plaintiff, at great pains and exertion, accord-
ingly composed the work for which he now sought that
reasonable and fair compensation to which he was entitled.
Mr. Williams. (the father of the plaintiff) proved that he
had seen the defendant on the subject of the plaintiff's
claim. When the defendant's partners in the exhibition
refused to have anything to do with the enlarged publica-
tion, the defendant declared that he would tak it_ upon his
own shoulders rather than that it should not go on. When
applied to for the amount of the plaintiff's demand the de-
fendant said he could not attend to it before he had either
the printer's bill or the bill of the plaintiff himself. The
bill was subsequently sent by the two-penny post, and in it
the plaintiff gave credit for 5/. that he had received from
the defendant. _ _ _

Mr. Drury, a printer, had been employed by the defen-
dant to print the pamphlet first written by the plaintiff, the
expense of which he had estimated at from 71. to 8/. When
new matter was introduced into it the estimate was increased,
but it was on the defendant's responsibility that witness
printed it, although it was the plaintiff who corrected the
proofs. Only 250 copies had been printed, and of these he
sent from forty to fifty to the plaintiff.
Mr. Kenny, the dramatic author, had looked through the
work alluded to, and read some passages of it attentively.
Ten guineas a sheet would be a moderate price for such a
work. It was on a subject which required considerable
research.
Dr. Uwins had been in the habit of writing articles for
the New :Monthly Magazine, and the Quarterly Review.
He thought that ten guineas a sheet ought to be the
minimum of remuneration.
Cross-examined—It might not be too much to give 701.
for puffing an exhibition of this description. Such a spe-
culation might not have been a bad one if the book had
been properly advertised and reviewed ; and if the •reviews
were abusive, so much the better for the sale of the
work.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY—NOW, Dr. Uwins, would any
but an insane person give 701. for such a work ?
Dr. Uwins—l cannot say. Probably Mr. Murray would
give 70/. for such a work. •
Mr. Sergeant ACFIERLEY—Then, Sir, Mr. Murray is,
according to your own apprehension, insane ?—(A laugh.)
Dr. Uwins—Oh, no. Ido not mean that Mr. Murray is
not sane. •
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY—But will you say he is sane ?
Dr. Uwins—l mean to say that he is as sane as any of
us ?—(A laugh.)
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY—You have given an opinion
on a literary subject, and now I wish you to give one on a
subject connected with your profession. Pray, Sir, do you
not believe that we are all mad, more or less ?

Dr. wins—Yes, I have repeatedly said and written
so.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY—Then it is upon this theory
that we are all mad together, authors, publishers, and
readers, that you consider this work worth 701., and I sup-
pose the madder the author the better and more valuable
you would consider his work ?—(Laughter.)
Dr. UwiNs—lt is well established that genius and mad-
ness are closely allied, and, therefore, an author coming
within the rule might infuse more spirit, talent, and beauty,
in his work, than a person differently constituted.—(Peals
of laughter.)
Mr. Fraser, the bookseller, of Regent-street, proved
that although the work might be worth 2501. to the defend-
ant, or 5001. to another person, to :a bookseller it was not
worth fivepence. Magazine articles were paid for at the
rate of 101. a sheet, but not works of this kind.

Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY, on behalf of the defendant,
said that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because
he was a partner in the publication in question.
Mr. George Munday, clerk to the defendant, proved
that the defendant had a conversation with the plaintiff, in
March last, on the subject of writing paragraphs about the
statues. The plaintiff wrote a paragraph, which appeared
in the Morning Post, and received from Mr. Ellis a sum
of M. for that and other paragraphs which he was to write.
The Jury, after a brief consultation, found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 50/.

EXCHEQUER COURT-SATURDAY

HUNTER V. THE COUNTESS OF BERKELEY.
Mr. THESSIGER, for the plaintiff, sated that this was an
action to recover the amount of the plaintiff's bill for
clothes made for the defendant's servants. The only
question involved in the issue was, whether the defendant
was liable to pay for a livery suit which, by 'ti private bar-
gain between her coachman and the plaintiff, had been
exchanged for a suit of plain clothes.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
M'CLEA V. FECTOR, M.F.
In this case, prior to its circumstances having been
stated, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff.—
Dam ages, 721.