The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Dec. 9.
(Before Sir J. KNIGHT BRUCE).
OLLENDORF P. BLACK.

The plaintiff in this case, Henri Godfrey 011endorf,
a foreign gentleman, was the author of a book en-
titled " A New Method of Learning to Read, Write,
and Speak a Language in Six Months, adapted to the
French, for the use of Schools and Private Teachers."
The work was first published in London, by Messrs.
Whittaker and Co., the other plaintiff, who had pur-
chased a right to publish an edition of 5,000 copies.
The selling price was 12s. per copy. The defendant,
Mr. Black, of Upper Wellington-street, Strand, had
published at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, an edition of
the work, which he had largely imported into this
country, at a selling price of ss. 6d. per copy. An
injunction was, therefore, sought against the sale of
such edition, and also an account of the money re-
ceived for the copies already sold.
Mr. Malins (with whom was Mr. Flaker) appeared
in support of the motion. Dr. 011endorf. at the time
of the publication of the work, was personally resi-
dent in London, as proved by the affidavit of his
landlady. In the case of " Boosey v. Purday" the
Court of Exchequer had merely decided against the
right of a foreigner residing abroad at the time of
publication. It had not gone the length of deciding
that a foreigner could not have the copyright in this
country.
Mr. ROLT (with whom was Mr. Eddie), for the
defendant, contended that the plaintiff had no domi-
cile in this country. He had merely come to this
country for a few days, to see his bookseller, and now
claimed the same rights of protection for his property
as a natural-born subject of the realm. The Copy-
right Act, which was relied on by the other side, was
not intended to encourage the publications of foreign
authors.

His HONOUR, said his belief was that when the
cases of " Murray v. Bohn," and " Murray v. Rout-
ledge," having reference to the works of Washington
Irving, were before him, the point whether the in-
formation sought for should be granted or refused
was not argued. It was in substance granted by the
counsel for the plaintiff that the matter ought to go
to law, the defendants being directed to keep an ac-
count. But if, however, the point had been argued
before him on those occasions, he should not consider
himself bound by what then took place, or by what he
then did. He considered himself at liberty to deal
with the present case as if those cases were not. It had
been said that the legal weight in this case was doubt-
ful, and that the mere existence of a doubt was suffi-
cient to prevent the Court from granting the injunc-
tion. He did not agree in that. He believed that
doctrine to be new, for it would interfere with the
jurisdiction of the Court, daily exercised to a very
great extent. The question of the legal right being in
doubt was a matter for the serious attention of the
Court, but it did not render it incumbent on the Court
to refuse the injunction. Notwithstanding the argu-
ment that the plaintiff in " Cocks v. Purday" was an
Englishman claiming by assignment from a foreigner,
his Honour thought that circumstance afforded no
clear ground of distinction between that and the pre
sent case. If the case of Cocks and Purday were un-
justly decided, it appeared clear to him the plaintiff
(Dr. 011endorf) was right in equity, and right i❑
law in the present instance. There was a circum-
stance here which distinguished the present case from
the case in the Court of Exchequer, "Boosey v. Pur
day." When the first publication of the work took
place in England, Dr. 011endorf was himself present
in England. It was said only temporarily so, and
that his domicile was originally foreign, and that it
had never ceased to be so. That may be, but his
Honour could not concede to the proposition that the
circumstance of Dr. 011endorf being present here at
the time of the first publication, was immaterial. His
Honour was of opinion, viewing the case as he did,
that there was a case for an injunction now; he
should therefore grant an injunction on the common
undertaking of the plaintiffs to abide by any order
which the Court may make as to damages. He made
this order merely as a lawyer, but for the sake of
literature generally, this ought to be the right view
of the law.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.
SMITH V. COOK.--LIBEL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. Sergeant SEISE then addressed the jury for the
defendant. Whatever might be the difficulties of a
case entrusted to an ads ocate in a court of justice,
there was always one circumstance calculated to
cheer and animate him, and that was the conviction
that his client was an honourable man. Captain
Cook was a man who, for nearly a quarter of a
century, had enjoyed the respect of his countrymen.
He was the Captain Cook who so honourably distin-
guished himself daring the destruction by fire of the
Kent East Indiaman, many years ago, in the Bay of
Biscay. He had since been employed by the Govern-
ment to treat with the African princes at the Niger,
with a view to the suppression of the slave trade.
This statemirt, now alleged to be libellous, had been
extorted from tim by the bold bad man who now
dragged him into court. Mr. Edmund Garbett, the
friend of Captain Smith, had addressed a letter to the
lion. Member for the West Riding of York, pub-
lished in the Times, and which called upon Captain
Cook to vindicate his character. It was true, as had been
stated by the plaintiff's counsel, that Smith appeared
at a meeting of the Peace Society, and stated his opi-
nion of the character of the pirates in the neighbour-
hood of Borneo. This became the subject of discus-
sion in the House of Commons when 100,0001. was
asked for head money for the pirates destroyed by
Raja Brooke. In the course of the debate it was
stated that it was to be wished that Captain Aaron
Smith could then state what he had asserted at the
meeting in question. The Learned Sergeant
then read certain letters of Mr. Garbett
to Mr. Cobden, in which it was stated
that Captain Smith had some years before published an
account of his life on board the pirate ship, in which
he had clearly shown that what Captain Cook had
stated at the trial was untrue, and that he (Cook) had
never had the manliness to answer it, or to defend
himself. He made a distinct charge in that letter
against Captain Cook, that he had stated what was
untrue on his oath. This letter having been printed
in the Times and Morning Post, it would not have
been proper for Captain Cook to have remained silent.
He (Mr. Sergeant Shea) would undertake to
prove that all that Captain Cook had stated
in his letter was the truth. If Captain
Smith wanted the whole truth to be known
with respect to the circumstances under which he
was acquitted in 1823, the better way to vindicate his
character would have been to bring his action against
the Times, when Captain Cook might have appeared
as a witness, and been cross-examined. He (Mr.
Sergeant Shee) would undertake to prove that Smith
had not acted by compulsion as a pirate, but was a
pirate and the associate of pirates of his own free will.
Mr. Edward Symmons, clerk to the magistrates at
the Thames Police-court, produced the original de-
position of Wm. Cook, the defendant, when Aaron
Smith, the plaintiff, was brought before the Court on
a charge of piracy in 1823. A small portion of the
deposition had been lost.
The deposition was then put in evidence.
John Thomas Stuart, clerk to the plaintiff's at-
torney, who was present at the examination of one
Andre Jean Malinaire (now out of the country),
touching this matter, produced the deposition. (Ma-
linaire's deposition was then put in.)
John Lagus—l reside at Mile-end, and now work
about ships. have been a mariner. In August,
1822, I was boatswain on board the brig Victoria,
which was on her homeward voyage from Jamaica in
July of that year. I know both Captain Smith and
Captain Cook. About the 7th August, when the ship
was off the island of Cuba, she was taken by a schooner.
The brig Industry, commanded by Capt. Cook, was off
that island at the same time. I had seen the schooner
chasing the Industry, and then get alongside of her.
That was about nine o'clock in the morning. The
Victoria was taken about one o'clock. The schooner
fired before we were taken. A boat then came
alongside from the schooner, with Smith on board,
and three or four more, armed with pistols, muskets,
and long knives. The boat was commanded by
Smith. His face was blackened a little,
I believe. He was not pulling the boat.
Smith came on board first. The captain
and the first and second mates were there.
The first mate said, "Is that you, Smith ?" Smith
said his name was not Smith, but Allen. He then
told the captain and the second mate to go into the
boat with three of the crew. The captain asked if he
must take his papers and what the schooner was.
Smith replied, " You will know when you go on
board." He then gave orders to fill the sails of
the Victoria, that she might run after the schooner.
The captain and the mate and second mate went
on board the schooner. Smith then asked for liquor
and dinner for himself and his men. The man at the
helm did not steer according to his wish, and Smith
called him a scoundrel, and took the cutlass and
struck him across the head, making a wound three
inches long. He fired his mnsket as a signal, I sup-
pose. Smith spoke to the pirates in English, and
they appeared to understand him. None gave orders
but Smith, and the men obeyed his orders. The man
at the wheel was sent away by Smith, and I was put
in his place. The steward prepared dinner for
Smith and his men. He asked where the cheese
was, and the steward replied that it was Cheshire
cheese. Smith said, " Where is Cheshire ? " The
steward said it was in England. The vessel was
becalmed on the same day, and two Dutchmen came
on board with knives. Smith fired a musket at me
because I did not steer according to his liking.
The witness, in cross-examination, stated that he
had given the same evidence on that occasion that he
had given to-day. The mate, the cook, and Captain
Cook, were also examined on that trial. The men
who came on board with Smith appeared to be Spa-
niards. They were armed with muskets, cutlasses,
and long knives. We were about half a mile from