The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-21 00:00:00

ill 'S iIEiCII.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Lord DENMAN and a SpecMl fury.) •
LENNOX q. DRSPettblYall AND OTHERS.
This IE9. Vaion brought by Lord George Lennox
dv.1.14.tt the Atlas Insurance Company to recover the
amount of a policy of Insurance for 2,5001., effected In
the month of August, 1832, upon the life of Lieut.-Col.
Greswolde. The facts are already fully before the publi,e,
the action having been tried some time since, and a verdict
bad for the defendants.
There arc a great number of witnesses to be examined,
and the case is likely to occupy all this day, and part of
to-morrow.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)

)3AXTER V. LOVER.

This was an action brought upon a matter of account.
The only question was whether certain consignments of
goods had been made upon a joint or separate account. It
was of no public interest, and had not concluded when we left.

ROLLS' COURT,--(THIS DAY.)

This was the fourth Seal Day after Term—the Cour'

therefore took motions.

CLARKE AND ANOTHER V. BARKER.

Mr. PEMBERTON moved, on behalf of the plaintiff in
this cases that the defendant might be restrained, by the
injunction of the Court, from publishing, selling, or dis-
posing of the plaintiffs' publication, " A List or Tabular
View of the Newspaper Press," in the bill mentioned.
The bill, which was supported by the affidavit of the plain-
tiffs, stated that in September, 1835, the plaintiffs, who
were advertisement agents, conceived a plan of publishing
a list or table of all the daily and weekly newspapers circu-
lated in Great Britain and Ireland, which would exhibit at
one view the political character of each newspaper ; that
they were employed for six months in this undertaking,and that
at length after great expense they formed a list, or cata-
logue of every newspaper published in the United Kingdom ;
those who advocated Liberal principles being printed in red
ink, the Conservative Journals in blue ink, and those Jour-
nals that were neutral in black ink; and the plaintiffs
alleged they had obtained a copyright in the same. The
Learned Gentleman observed that he regretted to find there
was a great preponderance of red ink over the blue, but,in
the midst of the political contest there were only two Journals
that stood neuter.—(Laughter.) The bill further stated the
defendant had caused to be printed a copy of the plaintiffs' list,
the only difference between the two being that the Liberal
Journals were distinguished by an asterisk, and the neutral
by a dagger. The bill also stated that the plaintiff's had in
their first edition:of the list or table ,made some involun-
tary mistakes as to the principles of certain newspapers
which the defendant had also copied. The defendant,
by his answer, stated that he had not pirated the WOrk
of the plaintiffs, but that he itcvd ben offered five
hundred copies by a porsr.,,:i of the name of Street,
which he bad accer;teu and distributed gratuitously ; that
a list tte political opinions of each newspaper was a
0"..,,ter more of curiosity' than utility ; that he, did
not believe the plaintiffs had incurred any expense ;
and that he had no intention of printing or circu-
lating any more. The Learned Counsel said, it could
not be denied this publication was the subject of a copy-
right, and it was of the utmost importance to his clients.
Individuals were governed in the advertisements by the
class of persons among whom they wished the advertise-
ment to circulate ; and that circulation depended very
much upon the opinions which the Journal advocated. The
opinion of a public journal must be presumed to be the'
index of the persons among whom that journal was circu-
lated. His clients had, by their own exertions, and at
great expense, conveyed that information to the public, and
he did not see on what ground the motion could be opposed.
Mr. COLERIDGE followed on the same side.

Mr. KINDERSLEY appeared for the defendant. The
defendant stood merely in the situation of a consumer of
a commodity, and the plaintiff should have proceeded
against ;Mr. Street who was the dealer. The defendant
had not sought to make any gain by the distribution' of these
lists, which ho considered merely in the nature of is pla-
card informing the public that 8.. Barker dealt in the same
Commodity as Clarke and Lewis.- He would put the case
of a grocer or perfumer putting in his window or placarding
a list of the different kind of cosmetics he dealt in.—

(Laughter.) Another perfumer or grocer wished to have
a similar list, he took a fancy to the arrangement of his
neighbour, and copied it, not for the purpose of selling it,
bat for the purpose of distributing it among his customers.
What was to prevent him giving the world to understand
by a similar document that he dealt in precisely the same
articles as his neighbour? If the Court were to interfere
in such a case as that, every advertising card might become
the subject of an injunction. The Learned Gentleman
submitted the thing was a mere placard for the purpose of
indicating the nature of the articles in which the parties
dealt, and that as the defendant did not sell the lists, the
Court would not, in the absence of all authority, interfere,
by injunction in so trifling a matter.
Mr. PEMBEItTON, in reply, contended the ground on
which the Court interfered by injunction in cases of this
nature, was to prevent a party from being deprived of the
fruits of his labour by the art of another, and therefore, the
work being distributed gratuitously, rendered the injury the
greater ; for it could never be maintained, that after an
author had been put to the expense and labour of publish-
ing a certain work, lie was to be deprived of the benefits of
so doing by another person publishing a copy of that work
gratuitously.
Lord LANGDALE considered the plaintiffs had a right to
the benefit of the information they had acquired at their
own expense, and that they had a right to say nobody
should interfere with them in the fair acquisition, of the
profits to be derived from their outlay and labour. The
defendant had circulated and distributed the list, not for
purpose of gaining profit by the sale, but for the purpose of
gaining profit by getting people to read the list, with the list
his name, and with his name the information procured
by the plaintiffs. His Lordship did not think that was a
lawful mode of proceeding, and therefore the plaintiffs were
entitled to the injunction. One person had no more right
to circulate original information than another. All he had
a right to say was, that nobody should avail himself of that
which he had procured by his own labour. Any person
might find out a road, or the situation of a particular mile-
stone i❑ the road, and insert that in his book of roads ;
another man might go the same road, and acquiesce in the
same road ; but he had no right to borrow the labour of
any individual.