The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 10.
LONGMAN AND CO. V. DOVE AND TYSON.

Mr. HORNE said that in this case Messrs. Long-
man were the plaintiffs, and John Fowler Dove,
printer, and the Rev. William Tyson, were the
defendants. The motion he had to make *as, that
the defendants stand committed for the breach of
an injunction of the Court. The injunction that
had been obtained restrained the defendants from
publishing Lindley Murray's English Grammar,
with the alterations and improvemants of the plain-
tiffs. This grammar was first published in 1795 :
it had gone through 43 editions, and the copyright
of it was therefore extremely valuable. The de-
fendants appeared to have thought so, for it had
tempted them to invade the property of another.
The original copyright of the work had of course,
by lapse of time, expired; but in the seventh edi-
tion of the work, published in August, 1801, with
alterations, additions, and improvements, the copy-
right still existed, up to August, 1829, in the plain-
tiffs. The injunction was obtained in April, 1829,
and therefore, between that month and August, if
he could prove piracy, he should have a locus slandi.
This was one part of the case; but as all the subse-
quent editions of the work contained alterations
and improvements, the copyright still existed in
them. Of these facts the Court, of course, had al-.
ready been satisfied, or the injunction would never
have been granted. The defendants, however,
abandoning their former publication, had put forth
another work, which was still a copy, though of a
more colourable nature, of the plamtiffs' book.
The Learned Counsel then put in the two books,
and pointed out various passages which, he con-
tended, were borrowed from the work belonging to
his clients.
Mr. LORRAINE followed on the same side.

The Sommon-GENERAL, for the defendant
Tyson, read the affidavit of his client, in which the
deponent stated, that after the injunction had been
obtained, Mr. Dove sent him a copy of the first
edition of " Lindley Murray's Grammar," and desired
him to write a Grammar on that plan, carefully
avoiding all the alterations and improvements which
Messrs. Longman had, or professed to have made in
the subsequent editions; that the deponent did so,
and was careful to leave out all the passages claimed
by the plaintiffs in the bill they had filed, praying for
an injunction. The Learned Gentleman argued
at some length upon the doctrine of piracy, distin-
guishing piracy from the legitimate use of preceding
authors by various examples. He acknowledged
that borrowing might be carried too far—so fur as
to constitute piracy. " For instance," said the
Learned Gentleman, " in a late edition of Shep-
herd's Touchstone,' the learned editor has taken
three or four of my chapters and placed them in a
note, without acknowledging whence he procured
them. This wa,i, perhaps, a compliment to me, but
though I don't think it quite fair, I did not file a bill
against him." The Learned Gentleman concluded
by contending that no other-than a fair use had been
made of the plaintiff's work, in the Grammar com-
piled by his client.
Mr. TJNNEY (for the defendant Dove) argued on
the same side.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR thought that the best
corn se he could adopt would be, merely to make no
order whatever on the motion before the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 10.

THIRLEWAY V. SPOTTISWOODE, ESQ., AND OTHERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this ease for
a rule to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff
should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.—
The action, which was tried at the sittings in Mid-
dlesex the week before last, was one of hover
azain-t the late Sheriff of Middlesex and his bailiff,
William Levi, for taking the plaintiff's goods under
an execution from the Court of Common Pleas.—
The judgment and execution had been set aside by
the Court, on the ground that the person against
whom they had been obtained was a married wo-
um, she being, in fact, the wife of Thirleway, the
plaintiff. The Learned Counsel sought to set aside
the verdict, not on the ground that the damages were
merely excessive, but that they were most extrava-
gant and foolish.
The COURT immediately granted the rule.
MARTINDALE AND ANOTIIER V. BOOTH, ESQ., AND