Star.
London, England, 1817-03-20 00:00:00

LAW 17tTELMGENCR.

COURT OF CHANCERY, M.VICti Is.

SOUTHEY y• SIJE:tWooD AND OTHERS.
This was a motion for in irjunctioa agalnet the
selling of it Wat Tyler," on the gronnd that the sen-
timents of the Work were he,sttle to the author's
present-mode of thinkiug and en his interests. inas-
much as they would hurt his reputation with the pub-
lic, both in point of literature and !were.
Mr. Ham., in moving for the injunction, cited the
case of Islacklin v. Richatchon, as u precedent ia the
present case. It appeared, that in tie year 1770, an
injunction was moved for, on the pail of 7alr. N:ac I:-
hn, ft): the stydressinir °I part et the priblicat:on of
a kar-t, called " LIIVt: A-13-M,:it:." Mr. )lacklin,
it was there stated, had nover published the Fa:ce
himself, but had permitted it to be acted ;11 two par-
ticular instances ; the one ut was Or the bene-
fit of an ector, for which he receiver twenty ponntls.
and tire other tor the benetit of another actor, Un- whicb
he received thirty paunds. In bath these instances
a short hand wrier of the name uf Gurney had been
employed at the Theatre in taking nates ot tl:e Farce,
and not ltaltt, atter, a part it: the Farce mare its ap-
reit ance 10 a monthly ra.arn:zine. It was Oleo con-
tended, that by being acted, the Farce
aad that theretore the it.j.:!:-.1%0n toast he rAitse,l.
Lnrd Camden, then Lore !rawer/cr. riatti.
tamed, that notwithstanding the Farce had :1C••
tell, and was so far publklied, yet that teklin
had a right to the btoctits. :ind profit: arising trona
the printing and publislii.:g his in, 11 Farce. Upon
these grounds lie granted the injnnctinn. flr. H.
therefore contended that Mr. S -ntney, f r tit s..rne
reasons, was entitled to the pinfits .rising from print-
ing and publishing the %Vol*, as well as now to sup-
press it.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, os the part of the defen-
dants, in support of his argument, said that the Corm
had no power to grant the injunction, inasmuch as
Mr. Southey could not have maintained an action for
damages in a Court of Law, supposing this libellous
production bad been pirated and suLsequently pub.'
fished, quoted the case of the publication of the work
of Dr. !'Walcott, in Vesey's kei;orts, where it was
clearly decided, that a man could not claim property
in a libel: Such was the opinion of Lor.l Chief Jus-
tice Eyre. He contended, that it would be the wages
ti sin to take the profits in such a work. ile there-
fore argued against the iiiitlitetintl, that the improper
nature and tendency of the work prechnted it from
the I.rotective iuterpositicat of the Court Chaneery.
ll he were injured, !a lam bring iii. action.
The Loan CMANCELLOIt to this said, it was ;I'l [or
holm to pronounce any optuion on the Ca pits iii t-r-
-dericy if the work : he enitlit only lunk at It as :I goes-
tion of pronerty. I-le, however, intinerrtn: all (Onion
against Mr. Southey, on the ground that the work
had been published many years withnin ;:ny p:
attempt on the part of Mr. S nrthey to call it in—
that its, discrepancy from the author's pres.:tir
ments was no ground for an injunction ; he cnnid
only interfere to prot•-•et the property ; nod, wi:!iran
iHdisposing of the applic.stion then, his Lo aship vak
the papers borne.