The Sun.
London, England, 1804-08-15 00:00:00

liVV atL L L. II
L., IF', PI •

COLN's INN HALL, AUG. tz.

COPY RIGHT.

TAYLOR V. CRObI3 E.

Mr. ROM T I.ey mai/1:d the Court to make.the or.
*der absolute, for dissOlving the injunction in thi;
case.

OWENS shewed cause against this order.,..—
We stated, that the Bill was filed for, an injunttion
to restrain the Defendant from publishing a certain
Work, entitled Crorbie's Builders' Prier Book, in as
Mochas it was a piracy of a 'book published by the
Pkintir. In the year 1776, the PlaintifFoublished
his work, which • being highly approved of, he
again, in the year 3'781, published. d further edition
of it, with various new and useful alreratiorts and
additions. From that period to the presint,' he had
from titne to time published several editions, in
which were introduchfmany new articles and prices,
regu'iated according to the variation of :the day, and
continued so to' publish new editions, almost every
year,- to 'the ,present period: The Defendant, in
.the beginning of the present-year, 1804, published
his'wor,' which, the Learned Counsel contended,
was a set VilC copy of the Plaintiff's book, and 'al.
most the Same, word for word, differing only'in one
respect : that instead of giving the current prices
"of building. inaterials, bricks,, mortar, timber, &c.
which the Ptaintiff had done, the Defendant only
gave the average prices of those articles, from the
year 1760 to 1790, and from that time to 1800 ;
which, as prices differed, • and materials altere,l iii
value,; in fad made the work of no value at alio—
The: Plaintiff, compiled this work at a very great
eXpence ; and, altar touch labour :and ingenuity,
with a vast deal of new matter, not contained in
any former work. The Defendant had taken and
pirated a variety of passages and whole pages from
it. Upon the bill being filed, hii Lordship granted
an injunction, that the Defendant should not pirate
~any payt of this work. He has put in his answer,
and said, that similar books were published, at dif.
ferent times, by. Simpson, Payee, and several others,
of some of which he,purehasect the copy-right. He
admitted the Plaintiff's work ;'but said it was taken
from a book of Cleverling's, entitled The atelier.
ter's Vademecum, and' that is was • nothing but a
transcript 'and compilation..from that and. 'other
works. The Plaintiff charged, that his work con.
tamped. a vast steal of new, important and useful •
matter, not contained,in any other book ; to•which
the Defendant answered, that he did not know
whether the work contained new or important mat.
ter or not ; and that he did not know the value of
the work, or who was the proprietor of it. He
had taken care, not to read the Bill, nor to look at
the Plaintiff's :Affidavit, in this application. The
Idfarnect Counsel then stated several parts of the
boa, which he said, were copied, and begged his
Lor'dship would take the ttouble, to compi.ire them,
and he would find that it was an absolute piracy,
and exaelly copied.. Upon these grounits, he cen„
tended, the injtinCtion ought not to he disiolved.
NIrAosAILLY, on the parl'of the Defendant, sub.
mitted té Ins Lordship, that the injunetibn ought to
be disspived upon two grounds : first, that. the
Plaintiff had no copy-right in, the book; and, se.
cendly, that the Defendant'sbook was not a piracy.
As to ,the first, Mr. Cleverling was alive at the time
that the Plaintiff had published his work, and there
was no prinia facie evidence that he had purchased
the copy.right: fiom him. As to the second, the
nature of the, work is the price of materials and la,
bour for the use of builders. The prices give the
value to the work ; .And the Defendant contended,
that, the general matter of both :works svvas notori.
ginal. In the year '1760, Salmon published his; in
'1776, Cleverling also published a work of this kind.
In the year 1800, Payne published one, entitled
The Builders' Golder 1?ule, which was an entire new

work, and purchatted by the Defendant. It 'gave
the average pricesi,but did not profess to give the
aCtual price ; he therefore submitted, that it was
manifestly, no piracy of the Plaintiff's book. In
this case, the Defendant might have nearly follow-
ed the hiVeral items in regular order, but the im-
portant parr, which was the figures and' prices stet.,
ed, differed, totally from the Plaintiff's. The
Learned Counsel observed, that a man might as well
be charged with piracy who published a Di&ionary
with the words in the same order as Dr. Johnson's,
but giving them different definitions. Besides,
Payne's, LeadbeateeS, and several other works of'
this kind, were, published subsequent to the
tiff's. His Lordship, therefore, would not suffer
one man to come in to restrain another, after per-
mitring a piracy for twenty.two years. The
Learned Counsel advanced a great number of able
and learned arguments-in support of his Client.
LORD CHANCELLOR, •—•-• 4,6 I understand Mr.
Taylor's book varies according to the.prices of the
day. Will any man tell me, that because he pub.
fished a work of this kind in 4 Soo, another man
shall not do it in tlior ?''

Mr. WETHERAL, on the part of the Defendant.
also contended, ilLit there could not exist any lite.
rary property in a work 'of thin kind. The c?py.
right of other. works was expired long before either
Plaintiff 'or Defendaner works Fere published.
The • Bill was 'only filed'a fortnight ago, and the
long vacation commenced:. he therefore trusted his
Lordship, when that Court was about to shut up
so sooty, and the time of building most pretralent,
would not, at•such a time, 'shut up the Defendant
from Publishing his' work.
• Mr. Owims replied.
.•
•
Lo g Taking all the circum.
stances of this cause into consideration, the question
first is, whether the-Plaintiff is to have his injontlion
Or not The Defendant's Bank is ptbliqteci in Fe.„
bruary,'lBo4. : it is for the Court to cntisitlei what
time the application is Made. One edition is sold,
anti inotherfpublidied, and 'then the partyconies'to
seek an injunction, therffcCi of which is pissed, to
prevent a publication which has been'going forWaid
kir so many months,. and no Complaint made. It
does appear, that the parties did not apply at 'the
rime they ought to have 'done so, when a .(.!ourt 'of
Equity, would Nave put the matter in a way -to be
tried by a Court of Law, whether it way a cony right