The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-08 00:00:00

THE ROTAL ETCHINGS.

NIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT V. 'TRANSR•

JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHINCELLoR, upon taking
proceeded to give judgment on this case,
readers will recollect came before his Lordship in the
whichhis
ourt,
seat,
course of last term upon appeal from the decision of
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce refusing to dissolve an
injunction he had granted ex parte in October last, re-
straining the defendant, Mr. Strange, the eminent pub'
lisher, carrying on business in Paternoster-row, his
agents, servants, and workmen, from exhibiting
a certain gallery, or collection of etchings, by
her Majesty and his Royal Highness Prince Albert•
and from making or permitting to be made any engrav-
ing or impressions from them, or selling them, or pub'
lishieg a descriptive catalogue of them. His Lordship
in giving judgment, said that the importance attachis4
to the case arose in consequence of the exalted station et
the plaintiff, and not from any difficulty which
was presented in the case itself. Cases 10;
volving similar principles had arisen before and
had been decided. An injunction had been sought 11.11
obtained restraining the defendant from publishing en
printing certain etchings and a catalogue of them, an;
the Learned Judge in the Court below who had granted
the injunction having refused upon application to him to
dissolve it, the case had been brought before this brawn'
of the Court upon appeal from that decision. The de'
fendant did not deny the facts stated in the affidavits is
support of the application for the injunction, and there'
tore the case might so far be considered clear, and with'
out difficulty. His Lordship considered that the unif
question he had to decide was, not whether the defendant
had the right to publish the etchings, for it was not
denied that he had not, but whether he had a right to
print and publish the catalogue. Now, it was stated la
the catalogue that copies of the etchings would
be furnished to the subscribers, and as that
in'
could not be done without the knowledge end
approbation of the plaintiff, it was manifest
that the defendant held out a false representation to the
public. In his Lordship's opinion, as all manufacturers
were protected from having their goods sold by other
parties under a false pretence, so in the case of works 0E
art of the description of those involved in the present
case, the same right existed. The affidavits in the cars
as well as the answer showed that the etchings were the
work of the plaintiff, and from their very nature it Nag
clear they were not intended for indiscriminate publics'
Lion; and therefore, when the defendant, by surreptitious
means obtained impressions of them, he must, is his
Lordship's opinion, have known that the publication of
them was not authorised by the plaintiff. It appeared
from the affidavits in the case that some of the plates of
impressions were given to a person named Brown,
.printer at Windsor, and that through a person, named
Middleton, who • was in Brown's employ, Judge 05'
Wined them, and gave them to the defendant Strange'
,In his Lordship's opinion, the case, as stated in the,
affidavits, was not met by the answer, and yes
the defendant persisted that he was entitled
to publish those works. It was contended, on the pso
of the defendant that there existed no property in the
plaintiff, so as to enable the Court, upon his application,
to restrain the defendant from publishing a description
or catalogue of the etchings. The property of an author
or composer in his works could not be disputed, and hie
Lordship saw no difference or distinction between thsC
case and the present. In the case of dramaticcompositiont
for instance, injunctions had been frequently obtained, On
so also in the case of Abernethy'sLectures, and if in the:
case the property existed in the author it must also e%ie
in the author or manufacturer of any other work; Ye',
that was what the defendant disputed, although by
strange contradiction he admitted that 'the etching
were the property of the plaintiff. It was not nee's-
sary for his Lordship, in his opinion, to. decide as t°,
what extent an injunction would issue from this Cour'
to restrain a party from translating, making extracts, ets
criticising works, because it did not apply to the pressno
case. Upon the question of property his Lordship
clearly of opinion that the exclusive right of printinf:
publishing, or otherwise disposing of these works r;
vested in the plaintiff, and that the defendant had no
right whatever to interfere with that property. mtl-
t the
present case did not depend on property alone, t'a
etchings were surreptitiously and fraudulently obteine„
and the defendant must have known from the very ch"e
' ture of the works that there could be no intention on te
part of the plaintiff to publish them. To this no answ`
had been made. The etchings had been obtained hi .
breach of trust on the part of Brown, or that of a Pere-of
named Middleton, and it was clearly a breach
trust on the part •of the defendant and Judge di
publish or make any use of them. That such ir'ef
the case had been clearly laid down in the cage ea
" The Duke of Queensbury v. Sheldon;" and in the news
of " Abernethy's Lecture," Lord Eldon had laid JO se
the doctrine thet a legal possession, without reference
the question of property, was of itself sufficient gron.th
for an injunction. His Lordship agreed entirely. tot
the doctrine laid down by the Vice-Chancellor Wigr„,e,
iu the case of a clerk in a merchant's counting-b°,;fte
or banking-house, who, having access to the books °,1.03;
firm, made use of that information so acquired by PlO,
be agreed with the Vice-Chancellor Wigrn •
that in such a case there was in the court a power toga
strain the use of the information, and if the court bed
such a power in that case, he could not see why I& the
it. not in the present, which was analagous to it. -tripe
case of a physician, who kept a diary of the 00; ee
and acts of George 111., it was decided tblt„Do.
could not publish that diary during the lite of th
There were some minor points in the case to wilwood
was unnecessary for him then to refer, but he fell „`,. the
to make one or two observations with reference, by sod
argument, that the plaintiff had not a right icft
the
was not the author of some of the etchings. ',A be
defendant had any interest in them that wcc;
the
_one&
a question which would deserve the consideration .0.
Court, but as he had no such interest it was o
ail Oa
eery to offer any opinion upon that subject. For refuse
reasons he had stated, his Lordship-felt bound to r
the
The
plication with costs.
ap
result of this decision is to continue the iDj
_olio:
Ch
tion, and to affirm the judgment of the Vicesou
Knight Brace refusing to dissolve it.