Star.
London, England, 1817-06-05 00:00:00

LAZY ithALLIGENCE;

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 4.
DALE AND ANOTHER R. LECICIE, ESQ.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Gale and
Fenner, the Booksellers, against the Defendant, a
Barrister at-Law, to recover a compensation in da-
mages for the loss which the Plaintiffs had sustained
in consequence of the non-performance of an agree-
ment entered into with them by the Defendant, for
the publication of a literary work entitled 44 An His-
torical Inquiry into the present State of the Balance
of Poetr in Europe," the manuscript of which was
to he fernished by the Defendant, who was to share
half the profits of the publication, the whole risk of
which was to be borne by the Plaintiffs.
Mr. GutiNev stated the case on the part of the
Plaintiffs. The Defendant, it appeared, was a Gen-
tieman of considerable attainments, and was celebra-
ted for some former literary efforts. He made an
offer of the work in question to the Plaintiffs, stipu-
lating that they should incur all the expense of paper,
printing, Sec.—that one half of the copy-right should
he given to them, and that the profits derived from
the stale should he divided between the contracting
prties. The proposition was acceded to, and an
agreement was drawn up and duly signed. In pur-
suance of this contract, the Plaintiffs received from
e Defendant manuscript copy, which filled 370
pages of letter-press, on which they had expended
seltib for printing and paper. The ,kot!: having so
far advanced, the Defendant refused to complete the
remainder of it, the entire work being ►tipulated to
consist of 500 Svo pages. The Plaintiffs temnii-
crated on this conduct, upon which the Defendant
Gffered to pay the ispenses incurred. This the Plain-
tiffs refused taking, upon the ground that they had
great expectations from the sale of the work, and
therefOre looked to the profit. In consequence of
this breach of agreement, the Plaintiffs not only lost
the sum they had laid out on the part which they
bad caused to be printed, but they were prevented
from realizing the profit which they expected to de-
rive from the publication. They, therefore, brought
the pre:.ent action, to procure damages commensu-
rate with their loss.

The sum expended for printing and paper was
then pin ved—and evidence was given, on the Dart
of the Plaintiffs, by Mr. Csothie, and several other
Booksellers, that they might have reasonably ex-
pected, from the profits of this publication, at least
at 90 for their share of the firht edition, and £l2O
as their part of the second, provided two editions
Were sold.

Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. DE MAN, for the Defen-
dant, first took an exception to the agreement stamp,
upon the ground that as profit was sought, it ought
to have a higher ditty. Ibis was over-ruled, as ap-
plying to conveyances. •
The rust ground of objection was, that this was
an agreement between partners in the profits of a
publication, and an action by one partner against
another could not lie.
Lord Ei.f.eNnonouutt distinguished the connection
between the Plaintiffs and. the Defendant from that
which exiated in an ordinary case of partnership t be-
cause here one party ran all the flak. and the other
took a share in the profit. flis Lordship was quite
clear on the law of the case, and had no doubt that
the action teas maintainable. If, however, the •
Learned Counsel entertained any doubt on this point,
be ksd no objection immediately to mil a bill of ex-
ceptions to his directions.
Mr. Scani.arr then addressed the Jury on the me-
rits of the case. lie insisted that the action was not
maintainable against the Defendant for a breach of
Ycement, inasmuch as be was justified in not coin-
ettine the contract, oil account of the nature of the
Work itself, which would have subjected him to a
prosecution at she instance perhaps of several persons.
Clay of his reasons for not proceeding with the work
was, the result of a recent prosecution. carried on by
the Russian Al bassador against Sir Nathaniel
"rasa% t,r the libellous matter contained in the
work published by that Gentleman. The book which
formed the subject matter of: the present action con-
twined ri-flettions and observations which might be
considered, perhaps, as offensive to his lioliness the
Pope. but the offensive matter contained in it, was
not confined to that iitssonage. It was!also inter-
spersed with very free observations on the conduct of
Lord Castlereagh, in respect to the proceedings at
the late Congress held at Vienna, ugd there were
also many remarks on the conduct of Viscount bid-
mouth. The Defendant was apprehensive, in con-
sequence of what had occurred to Sir N. Wirux4l4
chat if he continued the work, he would subject him-
self to a prosecution. Under these circumstances,
the Lrarned Counsel contended, that the Defendant
was justified in abstaining hom the execution of his
agreement. At all events, he submitted diat the
Plaintiffs were only entitled to secant lor.the us.
p...r.ses incurred by them for the paper-and rutting,
Which amounted to £106..
No evidence was nailed to substantiate the grounded
of defence suggested by the Learned Conatsel. nor
was any part of the work in question prodtwed to
si:pport the observations he had made, rel I the go the'
objectionable remarks said to be contained in its
Lord Eworacintmou, in charging the Jury. solid,
that if any evidence had been produced, to subati
Cate the ground of defence set up, the action woulti'
certainly not have been maintainable—inasmuch s
the Defendant, for his own security, as well fos that
cf the Plaintiffs, against an apprehended prosecution
for a breach of the law, viould hive been justified
in not fulfilling a contract, which might subject both
(him and them to such penal consequences. There
' had been, however, no evidence offered to substan-
tiate the dei.ucc: suggested—nor had any part of the •
work itself been produced, or any of the offensive
passages alluded to been pointed ,out, in orler to sup-
port such defence. It appeared to him quite clear
that the Plaintiffs were entitled. beyond all doubt, to
recover the antount of the expense to which they had
been put, for paper and printing, in the progress of
the work.' but his Lordship also aought, that the
Defendant, who was, alone, intimately conversant
with the nature c.f the.work, which he was about to
submit to the public; was bound at least to hage gleam
the Plaintiffs au opportunity of judging for themselves
of the peril in which they were likely to be placed by
the publication of the book which he bad agreed to
'apply diem with. The Defendant. however, not
having dose so, but Wing, upon a pretence that had
not been proved in evidence, kept aloof from the ptr-

formanee of his arreement. he WAR liable for those
expected profits, which the Plaintiff', by the terms
of the contract, might have derived front the publica-
tion. It was, However, for the Jury•to say, after the
evidence they had beard (iis to the profits which it
was supposed would be made, in case two editions
were sold), what amoyii of damages they would give,
in addition to the expense incurred by the Plaintiffs,
in fulfilling their part of the agreement.
The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiffs—Da-
mages e 156. 10s. being £106.105. expenses incurred
for paper and printing, and £5O for the profits the
Plaintiffs expected to derive from the work.

LQNDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS:
Yesterday these Sessions were held at Guildhall,
when Jaw Painter was indicted for having deserted
her infant child. The prisoner engaged a hackney
coach, the driver of which she ordered to stop at the
corner of Giltspur-street, when she requested him to
take care of her child while she went into an adjoin-
ing shop to purchase some cakes; when she fled, and
the infant was lodged in the care of the Parish officers.
She pleaded Guilty, and in consequence of some other
favourable circumstances, was sentenced but to a
week's imprisonment.
W. Smith was found guilty of assaulting W. Tay-
lor, an Officer, in the execution of his duty; and was
sentenced to one month's imprisonment.