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

GUILDHALL.

DESIGN COPYRIGHT ACT.—OH 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 2nd Vic-
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 prayed. The same Act im-
posed heavy penalties upon persons 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 au 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 hls carpets the number of the
registered design and date of register, and his own name.
In thepresent 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 apt was that the peculiar texture of
Messrs. Kipling's carpets was unknown up to, March last,
but since then the defendant had imitated the texture, as
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 Wool) 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 obtah 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.
Alderman WOOD 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, us the case 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 tar-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, fig-leaves,
arid diamonds, which could
be found in numerous oil-cloths and carpets, manufac-
tured 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
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 employingsole
draughtsmen for the
purpose 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 FAREBRICOI"it asked Mr. Jones if he
could prove that his client's carpet was manufactured
previous to Messrs. Kipling's.
Mr. 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 WOOD-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. Kipling s
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.
johnsyi 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, 1842.
Mr. William Eyre proved that he was a carpet-dealer
in Cheapside, 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
the prisoner took an objection to their jurisdiction. The
Act stated that the summons should be left at the
artof a
tradesman
to imitate a brother tradesman's goods, he resorts to
de-
fendant's " place of abode," and he had been served by
its being left at his warehouse in Bow-lane.
and that no
1
George Thomas Johnson, the defendant's son, proved
that his father resided at No. 14, Artillery-place,
aslCitrissobnurse Finsbury
-psquare,
oww-hlaicnhe.
Mr. Clarkson—The case now assumes this shape, that
after a most unworthy attempt o the Middlesex,
part
in
the miserable shelter of a legal tiEhnicality to harass
andtnneorys,e my clients.
whenshallntsltiieouu
m a l t
indicted comes under consideration.
The Aldermen finally postponed their decision unti
Monday next.

,
n tried, was
wa thes broughttrade and one
QUEEN-SQUARE.
before IMPORTANT DECISION TO LICENSED VICTUALLERS
—FALSELY QUALIFYING BEER-SHOP KEEPERS. A
sC se of tsh
tie e
vuetrm obsetfoirien pboeretanc
Mr. Gregorie for adjudication.
James Palmer, the keeper of a beer-shop in Upper
Garden-street, in Vauxhall-bridge-road, was charged
on Saturday that he unlawfully did, for the purpose of
obtaining a license to retail beer, produce and make use
of the certificate of Mr. Adam Dick,. an overseer of the
parish, knowing the matters certified therein, some oc
one of them, to be false.
Mr. Duncombe, Solicitor to the Licensed victuallers'
Protection Society, conducted the prosecution,
Defendant, in reply to the charge, said that the per-
foes who had brought this against him were a Society
who tried to crush beer-shops. He had done nobody any
wrong, 511(1 had forged nobody's
Mr. GREGORIE could not give witness much credit fjr
his observation. Mr. Duncombe represented a large and
confidential body of mm n whose interests were much
affected by the beer-sellers, and it could be a matter of
'neither complaint nor surprise that they should defend
their own. This case, in his opinion, was most distinctly
and carefully made out; nothing. which could strengthen
it had been omitted by the solicitor who had given it his
utmost attention, and it was clear by the evidence that
defendant was nut rated at all. At the time he obtained
and presented the certificate, Mr. Dick had been denied
by the tax-gatherer, and was net to blame, but the tax-
gatherer certainly was. He had no doubt about the
matter, and could make but little excuse for his conduct.
Ile (Mr. Gregorie) could see no reason for inflicting any-
thing Ws thin the penalty of 504