The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS .DAY.)

SHERIFF'S COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)

THE PRINTER'S BUSINESS JEOPARDISED,.-IMPORTANT

JUDGMENT.-ARLISS V. WOTHERSPOON AND OTHERS.

This was an action tried before Mr. Griffiths (as deputy
judge) on Tuesday, and adjourned till to-day for judgment.
Plaintiff is a printer, and sought to recover £ll Es. for
certain lulls and programmes printed by plaintiff for a
soiree and ba'l given at the London Tavern for the benefit
of the Warehousemen and Clerks' National Provident
Association, of which defendants had acted as managers
and directors.
Mr. Buchanan produced a programme, upon which was
no printer's name, and urged that by the 2 and 3 Vic., c. 12,
plaintiff could not recover for the programmes.
His Honour this day handed to Mr. Buchanan the fol-

lowing elaborate and important judgment :
" By the 2d sec, of the 2 and 3 Vie., c. 12, it is in effec.
enacted that every person who shall print any paper or book
whatever, which shall be meant to be published or dispersed,
shall print upon the front of every such paper if the same shall
be printed on one side only, or upon the front or last leaf of
every book or paper which shall consist of more than one leaf
in legible characters his or her name and usual place of
abode or business." (The judgment quotes the case of
Bensley v. Bignold in which a printer could not recover for
a pamphlet under similar circumstances to the present.) As
regarded the bills—although they were in four parts the
printer's name and address duly appeared, and the objection
would not apply ; but with respect to the programmes, each
is clearly a paper meant to be and which was published
and dispersed, and there are no words in the Act con-
fining the paper or book to any particular subject
or matter, excepting the second section which excepts
from the operation of the Act, books or papers published at
the University presses. The original Act of Geo. 111. was
evidently passed in consequence of the publication by
various societies of irreligious, treasonable, and seditious
publications, and the parties could not be reached because
there was no way by which the author or printer could be
ascertained, but the words in the section of that act
and of the present are general; they extend to
all papers and books, and in the case of Bensley and Ano-
ther v. Bignold the publication was "An Elucidation
of the System of Fire and Life Assurance," a publication of
a common character, neither irreligious, treasonable, nor
seditious ; and the court held that it was a publication which
came within the meaning of the Act. I should be glad to
find that the Act was intended to be confined to pub-
lications of an improper nature, and not to publi-
cations like those in this case, of a purely innocent
character; but as the words of the Act are generally
applying to all printed books and papers, I cannot
take upon myself to limit them. As, therefore, the objec-
tion is taken, I must say that plaintiff is not entitled to
recover for the programmes. He will have a verdict of
£6 ss. for the bills, to be paid immediately.
Mr. Buchanan—That is all we request.
Plaintiff—l can only say that the judgment is most
adverse to the interests of printers. The bills of her
Majesty's Theatre have no printer's name, nor those of the
Lyceum, St. James's lan, and many other places.

POLICE INTELLIGEN CE-( THIS DAY.)