The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-08 00:00:00

GUILDHALL.

DESIGN COPYRIGHT ACT.—On Saturday Guildhall
Police-chamber was crowded to hear the details of a
complaint that had been preferred against Mr. George
Johnson, an extensive carpet dealer, of No. 4; Bow-lane,
Cheapside.
Mr. Clarkson, the barrister, and a gentleman from the
office of Messrs. Allen and Nicholl, solicitors, of Queen-
street, Cheapside, appeared to support the complaint,
and Mr. Jones, of Size-lane, on the part of Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Clarkson, observed that Mr. Johnson, the de-
fendant, was the agent of Messrs. Platt and Son,
carpet-manufacturers, of Barnard Castle, Durham,
and the complainants were the Messrs. Kiplings, of
Darlington, in the same county, and the present inquiry
had been instituted through the means of Mr. Rothery,
their agent in London. In the year 1839, the 2ndlVic-
toria, chap. 17, was passed, and by that statute it was
enacted that due protection should be extended towards
proprietors of original designs, who should register them
at the proper office, and leave a certificate of such re-
gistry, which should be deemed and taken as evidence of
of the originality •of the design before a Magistrate,
until the contrary should be proved. The same Act im-
posed heavy penalties ion pet sons using such registered
designs, unless by the consent of the proprietor, and the
third section of the statute provided that certain penal-
ties should be inflicted upon any person who should sell
or expose for sale an imitation of such registered
designs, he or they knowing that the proprietor
thereof had not given his consent thereto. The
certificate of the registry bore a copy of the .design,
the date of it, and the name of the proprietor,
and the law likewise enforced the necessity of a manu-
facturer • endorsing upon his carpets the number of the
registered &sign and date of register, and his own name.
In the present instance the complainants had complied
with the various provisions of the Act of Parliament, and
the carpet was registered on the 15th of March of this
year. The defendants, however, made a very clumsy at-
tempt to imitate the original design, and thereby sought
to evade the law. The Learned Counsel produced the
original design and the defendant's imitation, and pointed
out the slight alterations that had been made. Another
infringement of the act was that the peculiar texture of
Messrs. Kipling's carpets was unknown up to March last,
but since then the defendant had imitated the textureos
well as the pattern and colour. He should show that the
defendant had a guilty knowledge of the carpet sold by
him being an imitation, and he should put in the certifi-
cate of the registry to support his complaint.
Alderman WOOD said that as there was a distinction
between the. carpets, the better course probably to pur-
sue would be to express no opinion, but refuse to convict,
and leave Mr. Clarkson to obtaia a mandamus against
them to compel them to act.
Mr. Clarkson reminded the Bench, that he could not
compel them to convict, but only to hear the case.'
Aldermen 'Wool) observed that the Magistrates would
first hear the Learned Counsel on the point of the imi-
tation of the original design, and then, if they were
against him, they would refuse to hear the case, to en-
able him to obtain the opinion of a superior Court.
Mr. Clarkson was perfectly satisfied, as the ease was
one of immense importance to the commercial world,
and the present complaint was not brought forward out
of any vindictive feeling, but to put a stop to a growing
and far-spreading evil.
A lengthy discussion then took place between Mr.
Clarkson and Mr. Jones, the former contending that al-
though some of the figures on the carpet were not new,
yet the combination of them was so, and the certificate
of registry proved that fact. Mr. Jones, on the other
hand, insisted that the carpet belonging to Mr. Johnson
was not an imitation of Messrs. Kipling's, but merely
contained scrolls,
numerousfig- oil-clothsleaes:
timed before the passing of the Act referred to by Mr.
Clarkson. He submitted that it was a new, and not an
original design, that Messrs. Kipling had produced, and
and diamonds,and carpets, which
ocuor
be found incould
therefore it was not entitled to the protection of the
statute.

Mr. Clarkson, in reply, remarked that the Act of Par-
liament was intended to protect manufacturers who were
at the expense of employing
draughtsmen for the solepurpose of making new designs. If an original combi-
nation of old figures formed into a new pattern was not
an original design, he did not know what would con-
stitute one.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER asked Mr. Jones if he
could prove that his client's carpet was manufactured
previous to Messrs. Kipling's.
Air. Clarkson—Aye, let them prove that, and I will
confess myself beaten.
Mr. Jones said he could not do that, but he would show
that many of the figures were not original. (He here
produced a number of patterns).
Mr. Clarkson observed that the statute enacted that it
was sufficient to prove the originality of a design to pro-
duce the certificate of registry to the Magistrates, and it
was for the opposite party to give contrary evidence.
Mr. Alderman Woon thought that this was similar to
a piracy of music. Nearly the same notes might be used,
but the combination of sounds produced would be very
different. The question was whether Messrs. Kiplings
carpet as a whole was, or was not, an original design.
They had no right to look to any particular square or
figure of the pattern, and decide alone upon that.
The Aldermen decided that the carpet sold by Mr.
Johnson was an imitation.
Mr. Joseph Rothery, agent to Messrs. Kipling, then
proved that he registered the design of the carpet pro-
duced
on the 15th of March. 1840.
Mr. William Eyre proved that he was a carpet-dealer
in Citeapside, and purchased a roll of carpet of Mr.
Johnson, and the second piece produced, and called
the imitation of Messrs. Kipling, was cut off the
roll. The piece was a penny per yard cheaper than
• Messrs. Kipling's.
The Aldermen were about to give their opinion, when
when the prisoner took an objection to their jurisdiction. The
Act stated that the summons should be left at the de-
fendant's " place of abode," and he had been served by
its being left at his warehouse in Bow-lane.
George Thomas Johnson, the defendant's son, proved
that his father resided at No. 14, Artillery-place,
Finsbury-square,. which is in Middlesex, and that no
person slept in Bow-lane.
Mr. Clarkson—The case now assumes this shape, that
after a most unworthy attempt on the part of a tradesman
u ise resorts to
the miserable shelter of a legal technicality to harass
myself, however,
to imitate a brother treandlet sis mhe
shall
lanl
m' s goods, o
availuu t of
penalties to be
andoint.
fi his
annoy ne
perseverance
eocryos
emtNneeysr
auc clients.
sh.
consideration.
The Aldermen finally postponed their decision un
Monday next.

1301;'-STREE7.
FRIED DABS.—Two ragamuffin-looking lads, named
Rourka fried fish, the property of one Jemmy East,
e
e and Jones were placed at the bar, charged with
a vendor of those delightful delicacies which are to he
seen in the neighbourhood of the galleries of our minor
theatres, and are known to the delicacy-loving populace
by the name of " fried dabs."
Mr. East, the complainant in this case, who is a gen-
tleman of a very amiable, easy-like cast of countenance,
stated that when he was at home he lived at No. 53,
Chandos-street, Bedfordbury. " Jest as I was a shettin
up myshop," continued the pleasant-looking little vendor
of dabs,
my ‘ s,‘ Ipsleac.
eset,h, these here two friends o' mine, who fre-
Mr. TWYFORD—Frequent your place ! you mean they
are customers of yours—they come to buy ?
Mr. East—Not a bit of it your Vorship ; is aint buy,
its prigs the vord. Lor bless your Vorship, there's
about 150 on 'em cums there for the very same purpose—
blessed if they don't. It's a long time yer Vorship,
since they first begun a playin, o' these here
precious games, but for ' it aint a bit o' fried
fish as I cares about ; but it aint only that, its
'
hoysters, ginger-beer, orhangd think they can lay
their precious mivvies on. If hi on t twig 'em, blessed
don'tte'iar walk
hoff vith em jest for all the vorld as
hown, lorfully cum by—rich they cer-
tainlyyer Vorship, hit cum to the pint.
ii f f they
theyy
isv
not.
th
As I was a shettin up, my shop this mornin, about five
minets afore von—it might be a minet more or less—but
it wasy ef,
blleist five minets afore vun, 'eordiu to the best
o' m
I sees them here two young prigs a comin
across the street; thinks I here's two o' my friends, they

A BRUTAL ITUSBAND.—John Pearee, a respectably-
dressed young man, was placed at the bar, charged with
being, drunk and disorderly at ten o'clock last night, in
Oxford-street, and violently assaulting his wife, a young
woman of interesting appearance, but evidently in a very
delicate state of health, and who is far advanced in
pregnancy.
Police-constable No [lO3 of the C division, stated
that the prisoner's extremely. violent conduct
caused a great crowd of persons to assemble,
whereby - the thoroughfare of the street was
greatly obstructed. The wife of the defendant was
anxiously intreating him to go homawith her in a peace-
able manner, when he suddenly turned round upon her,
and with his clenched fist, struck her two blows on the
side of her head, with all his might; but for one of the
by-standers catching her in his arms, she must have
fallen in the carriage-way, with an infant about eighteen
months old she had in her arms at the time. He was
proceeding to further ill-treat her, when witness seized
and secured him. He was at the time infuriated by
passion and the effects of liquor.
Mr. MALTBY asked if the wife intended to prefer a
charge against him ?
Inspector Plume of the C division, said she was wait-
ing outside the Court, but be believed that it was not
her intention to do so. At the station-house she refused
to give charge of him, as he threatened "to pay her"
when he got his liberty, and she stated that he would
ill-use her the more afterwards. -
Mr. MALTBY ordered that she should be brought into
Court.
Mrs. Peavee consequently appeared, and from the man-
ner in which she answered the Diajestrate's questions, it
was plain that her affe-.tion for her husband, coupled
with her concern for the welfare of her family had in-
duced her to forgive him.
Mr. MALTBY said it was a pity she had not got a hus-
band more deserving of her affection. But for her sake
he (the Worthy Magistrate) should have imposed a very
heavy fine upon him. As It was he must pay a fine of
ss. for being drunk.
The wife said he had been ouCof employment for six
months, and had only just got into work. Mr. Fitz-
patrick (the Chief Clerk) said that perhaps imposing the
fine would only be punishing the wife and children. He
was then discharged, and his wife left the Court with him
with her countenance beaming with joy.
CLERKEN WELL.

Joseph Vecchio, an Italian, was charged with embezzling
various sums of money, the property of his employer,
Andrea Mullinora, looking-glass manufacturer, Leather-

Lne, Holborn.

The prisoner was travelling clerk to the company, and
had from time to time failed in accounting for the prices
of glasses delivered by him. On Wednesday week he
delivered a small one, value 31., and his master having
expressed his intention to settle his accounts, the prisoner
did not return, nor send back the money. Police con-
stable Archer apprehended him last night in Beecham-
street, Clerkenwell.—He was committed for trial.