The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-28 00:00:00

LA* E WAG N CV.

V ICK-CHANCEIatO iCOURT, .am 5.
PAULZTT AND wriAlts
Hots 4 It, molted on behaltaf,the plaintiff; tbarthe High
9e Pucks should be restrained from paying over to the,
,I...fetalant a Stith of 9001. apil upwards, now in lush:olds, the
proOedi oC a writ of esstentien to him directed, and also to
restraiutheale.,:idant ..'from proceeding upon, two several bonds
r f The Plaintiff's. It was stated by Counsel', that Mr. Paulett„
coin.- embarrassed in his ercurnstancei, had applied
to tta.: d6.,ridatits Deane, living ..ear Covent-garden, to
s( ;lenient with his creditors. Mr. Paulett in the, mean
...ent to rcxide at Abingdon-house, Bucks. After some
elapsed, it appeared that ,Mr. Deane had not sue-
ceeded in his exertions; but. as :11r. Paulett was about to leave
4ngtaarl„lie appit ;d to be pilid certain sums which he said he
had di,blirsed on Mr. Patric:Ws aceount,Und also for a remit-
nerati9ir for his services. Mr. Paulett not being then able to
pay, agreed to give Mr. Deane a bond, in which he prevailed
...s ;,;5t,...n., Miss Paulett, and Lord Nugent (also
• to.l'Oin, in order to cover what might be due to the defendant.
Toe defendant had, never furnished any a:count of the claim
he might have on the plaintiff, although he had been 6equently
requested to do so ; but he had proceeded tot obtain judgment
on the bond, and execution had actually been levied upon
Lord Nugent. •TO restrain the payment of the money under
this execution, was the that. object.of the injunction; and it
went further to prevent any other proceedings upon this bond.
The bill stated, moreover, that Mr. Paulett, having occasion
to raise money, had requested the defendant to procure it for
him, and that he had in consequence executed
,another bond to
a Mrs. Cecil, represented to belliVing in Sloane-street, who
the defendant said was willing to lend money on Mr. rauletes
personal security. No money had, however, been procured,
and' the bond was, in fact, u charge outstanding against the
plaintiff, who had never received any consideration for it. The
further object of the injunction was to restrain any proceedings
on this bond.

The injunction was granted, and Mr. HORN): intimated that
he should forthwith *pp!), for an order to the Shea' of Bucks
to pay the mOney.intd7Court.

WILIVPON T. THE PtiIENIX OAS COMPANY.
Mr.•IIAnT moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants
from proceeding with certain works which belonged to- the
plaintiff:. It appeared that the, Act of Parliament by which this
Company was instituted, contained a power for cutting through
any places which might be necessary for the laying their pipes.
The plaintiff was possessed of a house, in the front of which
was an extensive avenue of elm-trees, and the workmen of the
Company had opened the ground on. which these treca stood, as
well as other parts of the IklaihtirS premises, for the purpose
of laying pipes, and carrying on other operations. In the
month of November last, thirty of the plaintiff's trees began.
to lose their bark, and to decay. Upon examination, it was
discovered that the trees had been destroyed by the gas which
had escaped from the pipes under and near to them. This fact
was substantiated by the affidavits of two market-gardeners
mid a practical chemist, who stated they had no doubt that the
trees had been destroyed by the gas.
Mr. Suonnst, for the defendants, opposed the injunction on
the ground that the plaintiff had not included the trustees of
the parish, who had given permission to the Company in the
bill. Ile had besides suffered the lamps to be lighted for live
months before he complained. and then finding that the bark
fill frem his_ trees, he thought the injury had been done by
some mischievous boys, and had offered a reward accordingly.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that as no immediate in-
jury was apprehended, and as the plaintiff had already per-
mitted the lamps to he lighted fbr five months, this was not a
case in which the Court would be induced to depart from' its
usual practice: The objection taken by the defendant's Coun-
sel was • a valid one, and the nmtion could not therefore 'be
made until the trustees should be made parties to the bill.

-
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 27.-
MF.M.OI RS OF 11,111,111ETTE WI I,SON.
BTOCKDALE V. ONWItYN.
Afr. ilnouattaat moVed for a rule to show cause why the
norisuit should not be set aside and a new trial had. This was
an action for pirating a work, entitled " Memoirs of Harriette
Wilson," and at the trial before the Lord Chief Justice at
Westminster, the plaintiff WilM nunsuited on two grounds,--"-
first, that he not sufficiently shown that be was the proprietor,
of the copyright ; and second, that the book Wan of a libellous ,
and licentious character. The first objection, however, was ',
not relied on, as there was a count in the 'declaration, merely
alleging that the plaintiff was the first publisher ; but the non.
suit was rested on the second.. Now time opinion, that no pro.
petty could exist hi an objectititiable work, MMI-AA NU
merely by a, dielunt of Lord Chief justice Eyre. lie spoke
with the more confidence on this point,-because in the cases
which had come before the Court of Chancery, no other autho-
rity was cited ; and it was certain, from the universal and pro.
found learning of land Eldon' that if other case* existed, he
would have reterred to them in his judgment.. That case; as
stated in . argument by Sir Samuel liontilly, in " Southey v.
Sherwood" was nu action brought by Dr. Priestley against the
hundred for compensation in respect of him library end philo-
aophical Iwo:irides, which had been, destroyed by a riotous
tnob. A suggestion was 'made, that the celebrated person who
was plaintiff, had been in the habit of publishing works injti.
rious to his Slaiesty'll tioverinnent ; no such evidence was of-
fered ; but Lord Chief Justice Eyre said, if it had been offered,
he should have received it, In reference to the plaintiff's
Now, 'in the first piece, this dictum was extrajudicial as the'
question never arose; and in the next place, it was so mani.
testlY incapable of being supported to its full extent, as to be of
little value. !low, then, did the question stand, independent
of decisions ? It was clear that, for some purposes,. there
Might,lot property in a licentious book t as for example, an in-
dictnient would he for larceny, it' it were stolen.
Mr. Juttice LITT LEDALE —Oil, that is a very different
case ; because a man may have a property in the leaves and the
binding: • • • . •
Justice BAYLEY—Rut if the value came in question,
Idotibt whether it could be found to be of any value beyond
the paper and the covert. . •
illr.llnouottast proceeded to urge that the effect of for.
bearing to restrain or punish the piracy of mischievous works
was their increased circulation at they were published at lower
prices—the. book in question bad been sold at half the original
price by the'defendant.
Mr. Justice Ittit.noYn—ls not the foundation of this action
a right to publish ? and can there be a right to do an act which
the latv will punish criminally, when done ?
Mr. Baoutittax argued that if' there could be no property
in a work which was chiefly licentious, there could be lane
in a work etintitining • any objectionable passage ; and do
could never be contended. In Home v. Dale," 2 Campbeil,
201 4n action was brought fur pirating a song-Abraham New-
laml--wben the Attorney.Oeneral, Mr. Carroty , read a verse
reflecting on the administration Hof justice, to show that he
could not he protected by law • but Alr. Justice Lawrence
said, "The argument used by law;
Churow on this fugitive
piece as being a libel, would as forcibly apply to the lleparor's
Opera, where the language and illusions ate suff.ciently de.
rugatory to the 'administration or public justice."' 'Thus it was
clear Mr. Justice Lawrence thought the Reggaes Opera
work in which there might be property,.for he put the contrary
supposition as an absurdity; amid the Beggar's Opera exhibited
the exploits at' licentious characters, not to hold them up to de.
testution, but to throw an eclat round them and make them the
means 'of pleasure to readers and spectators. This work bad
never been prohibited by time Cantherlain ; but another work
of the Same author, called Pally, had been ; and yet Lord
Talbot protected Polly, by restraining a person who pirated
the songs. •
Mr. Justice I)AYLE Y —Perhaps he thought the best way of
suppressing the work was to grant the injunction prayed.
Mr. IlatavonAm said, that a' Judge, no less learned and
severe than Lord Kenyon, had considered the llfernoir,s of:
Georgiana entitled to protecion. At all events,
the character of the work WIN no ground of tionsnit, hut
only a ground for mitigating the danthges:- The' statute
of Queen Anne providetl not only for the protection -of
authors, but the punibliment of pirates ; :led if there Wita no
property in mischievous works, 'the worst • of pirates mutt
escape ponishrtient,.becatute no one would be entitled to take the
requisite Measures to bring them to justice. The decisioh of
the. Lord' Chancellor, of which the last was '1 Southey V. Sher-
wood," 2 Alerivale, 435, were no authorities on this point, be-
•cause it might be very proper to,withhold the extraordinary In.
terpokition of a Court of Equity, when a party might have a
title at law. The 'queStion, therefore, was still open, and was
worthy of being considered further.
'the Loki (shits' JusTicy.----This was an action to re-
cover damages for arm injury Width the plaintiff' alleged he had
sustained. by the pliblivation of another copy of a book winch
lie el/mimed an sketusive right to publish. 'At the trial it was
-proved, and not disputed, that the work professed to be the
history of the amours of a courtesan, and that in many parts It
contained matter exceedingly indecent
end licentious, and in
others libellous statetneets, effecting the greputation of indivi-
duals mentioned by name. The question then is, whether the
plaintiff can come into a court of law and Clain) compensation
'for loss of profit on such a work ? To do this, he must strewthat he has a right to tell, for it is an injury to this right of
Which he complains and if he has no such right, he can have
no ground of action. Can any law Jeerer say he has a right to pub.
fish such a work es this, when the act or issuing every copy to the
world im•an offence against time law, for which he may be punished
by the law? No, ever!, lawyer, and every man of sense must
Say at once, that no such tight exists.. And are we, then, to
afford security to a claim of right which cannot be exerted in a
single instance without the commission of .a cruse ? I am of

°Pinion' on the first and plainest .principles of the.common law
of England, that such security !cannot be given. Those prin-
ciples are the principles of common sense anti common jus-
tice;: common sense and common justice prove, that no pro-
perty can exist in such a work ;
,and I desire no precedent, no
authority, to warrant me in pronoinicin my judicial opinion
that no such property C2ll be recognized by law.- " I will say a
few words on the.-,decisions which have been referred to in
• courts of equity, though they are no authorities to bind Us.—
It scents that one learned and exulted person thought it was
better 'to restrain the pirate }tom diffitsing a- 'flitschievouss
work ; while another person of equal rank and equal learn-
ing conceived it better to recognise no property in such
rs work, and- thus to - discourage men - from, • publishing,
by • the easy defeat of that uniform objeCt—gain. The
„object of: both was the same--the -suppression of pertini-
'ous books; and it is unnecessary for us to determine which
Course was most likiikr to produce that object. It is enough
for us to say that we cannot enforce a right to such a work ;
and that it would be a greet disgrace to' a court of law if it
could for a moment regard it as within its protection.
• The other Judges Concurred; and Air. Justice. BAY tE'T
sdtled, that perhaps it might be desirable that a Court of
Equity should restrain a party from publishing a libellentl, or
licentious work,' on the,undertaking of the author not to pub-
lish it himself.