The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JuLT 2d.
(liefiwe the Mat Tim ty' the Itraa.s.)
'Mk day Ida Lordattip heard rootiona, *tone of which were of
any importance.
ut.4isillwaTON V. TliwalTies.
At the rising of the Court, the plaintiff in this case, which
relates to the proprietorship of the Morning Herald newspaper,
addressed his Lordship, and maid that lie had now for fbur
years been kept in a state of anxiety by the defendant. On
Friday week the defendant filed an affidavit, to which he (the
plaintiff) replied on:Monday. lon Wednesday, when the
cause was coining on to be argued, Mr. Agar, the defendant's
Counsel, requested that it might stand over till Friday last.
Tina was complied with ; but on Friday Mr. Agar did not
intake his appearance in Court. To-day, also, Mr. Agar had
not appeared, although bis (plaintiff's) Counsel, Mr. houpell,
had been waiting in Court all day to make his motion.
Ills i.ounsuir told the plaintiff that on Wednesday Mr.
whether Mr. Agar should be
Itoupell might move the Court,
present or not.

COURT' OF KING'S BENCH, JIMY 26.
ikfurg Loa') Cif !Er JusTicE and a Common Jury.

MEDLAND v. INIGHT AND LACE Y.
Mr. ADOLPUUM stated this to be an action brought by the
plaintiff, an engraver, against the defendants, to recover damages
which he had sustained, in consequence of their having pirati-
cally published copies of plates, the property of the plaintiff.
The plates consisted of likenesses of Thurtell, Hunt, and Pro-
hen. The were engraved at some expence and pains, from
drawings which were taken by a relation of the plaintiff; in the
court at Hertford, in December last. Having been engraved
by the plaintiff; they were published by him, and sold by Mr.
Cribb, a print-seller in London, on his account, and at first
they sold very well at the price of one shilling each. After a
short time, however, the plaintiff found that the sale had fallen
oft; and he almost immediately discovered that this had been
occasioned by the defendants having published an account of
the trial of the persons whose portraits he had engraved, in the
frontispiece to which trial was a plate, in which the portraits of
the three culprits were closely copied. The amount of the
damage sustained by the plaintiff' might be estimated by the
advantage which the defendants had derived from the use they
had made of his property, and that it had been highly lucra-
tive to them could not be doubted, when it should be known
that they had sold 10,000 copies of their first edition, and had
afterwards found it necessary to have another copy of the pirated
plate engraved for other copies. lie then called
Wm. Medland, the son of the plaintiff, who said that he made
drawings in the Court at Hertford, in December last, of' Thur.
tell, Hunt, and Probert. These drawings were afterwards en.
graved by the plaintiff:—(The witness produced the plates.).---
There were some slight variations between the drawings of the
witness and the engravings of the plaintiff; the latter having
added, of his own invention, the tic of the neckcloth and the
folding of the arms to the portrait to improve the effect.
itness made the sketches on
his inlle had not intended to make them Pre-
oEualaynk iebnruCtd fibbn°lyt'lki:. n 1 gr * llr
that he had a good opportunity, from his
situation as clerk to the Magistrates, and sitting at the end of'
their bench, he did so, and
gave the drawings afterwards to his
father.
John Erry proved thyurchase of a copy of " Pierce Egan's
ACCOUId of the Trial ?Udell," at Messrs. Knight and
Lacey's, on the 14th of anuary last, and another ou the 29th of
the same month.
Charles Stothart, Eaq. R. A. on looking at the engravings
published b the plaintiff and those In the defendants' pamph.
.y
let, had no doubt that the one set were copied from the other.
Mr. H. Meyer,
an engraver, deposed to the same effect.
. •

Cross-examined by !Ur. 61; tun:Y.—lle could not tell what
the cost of these engravings might have been.
Ite-examined —De would willingly have given 10 guineas
for each of the drawings before they were engraved.
Mr. Cribb, printseller, began to sell the plaintiff" plate in
December last ; they at first sold very well, but on a sudden
the sale ceased. Tbree hundred copies were sent to him, a few
of which were left when the sudden cessation took place. The
sale was previously what he called brisk. If the plates and
copyright had bee bought to ihe would have given M.
or NI. a-piece for n eacrh, and wouldhm, have expected to make a
profit of them.
Cross-examined by ligr, SCARLETT—Can't tell exactly the
day on which he first received the plates, but thinks they came
about the middle of December. The sale continued about a
month. has none'of the prints of Thurtell left, and very few
of the others.

Force, printseller, of Piccadilly, deposed that he had
sold the plates readily at first, but that afterwards they declin.
ed, in consequence of the publication of Knight and Lacey's
account of the trial.
At this period of the trial an offer was made by the defend-
ants' Counsel to permit the plaintiff to take a verdict for GM,