The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-09-28
SOME NEW BOOKS.


low, but Judging from the merits of the ncst,
the legal profession will suffer nothing II the
publishers should permanently withhold t..
The careless communication OF professional
works has become so common, even IN profess
sional journals, that IL Is time TO protest against
It, and we cannot better do 70 than by applying
TO Mr.. Morgan's book the high standards Of ex-
ceIloncc which the literature Of the law so
abundantly affords.
The title OF the work II a misnomer, az used
by the author, who expressly intends it TO en-
brace 1.-THE laws Of literary property in menu
scripts; books, lectures. dramatic and musical
compositions; works OF art, newspapers. perl
odicals. &C; copyright transfers, and copyright
and piracy; libel and contempt OF court by
literary matter, &C." Now, properly speaking
there IL no such law OF literature IA this any
more than there Is law Of animals, embracing
the contracts which may be made concerning
horses, cattle, sheep, or dogs. and the wronns
or acts Of negligence Of which they may be
made the agents. or In respect to which they
may become the sufferers. The term sounds
we'll but lacks sense The LEGAL tonics which
Mr.. Morgan attempts to treat under 1t do not
naturally belong together. The basis OF his
classification Is defective. The mere fact that
book is the subject matter Of litigation or
appears as an agent In some controversy. by no
means determines the character Of the law
applicable to the case. Perhaps II may be
pardOnAble, though certainly II Is not accu-
rate, to call that portion Of the law which re-
lates to property In literary productions, the
law Of literature but to 90 further than this,
and include within the phrase such subjects as
libelllng a man by fixing gallows or other re-
proachful or gnomnious sign at his door tpage
1917, and the commission Of contempt OF court
by means OF a resolution passed by the Common
Council (page 2s1), makes the use OF the term
glaring perverson OF language.
similar tendency on the part OF the author,
but far moro pedantic, " visible In the preface,
where he calls a suit in equity " pursuit." tho
plaintiff I" the pursuer,' and talks about an in
junction being raised. The unprofe ssi onal
reader may suppose that these are terms I'm COM
mon use among lawyers, and so they are-but only
In Scotland. Their introduction into an Ameri-
can law book IL az Inappropriate as II would be
In this country to speak OF q horse car railroad
as tramway, OF baggage car "a a van, or Of a
conductor as 1.-THE guard" We must remem-
Der, however, that the ideas OF the author on
style are somewhat peculiar, for he tells us that
=" II is al least question whether literary merit
II any merit at all IN "a legal work-whother even,
tie not a positive demerit."
At all events 1t is not positive demerit In the
specimen Of his work before Us. Somewhat
apolcgetcally he goes on TO say that III II be
accurate and reliable, the lawyer and the student
will pardon q lack Of unity and STYLE" But
what II the book be neither accurate nor trust
worthy What II II be without system or orig
inality padded with long extracts and irrele-
want matter, possibly interesting to the desul-
tory reader but practically useless to the profess
sional msn7 VIII the lawyer and student pardon
such deficiencies? We think not.
A. 40, h., L.f 10
admire Mr.. Morgan's book. Take, for example,
the lftieth section, page 103, in the chapter
on llbel
Not only will the common LiU restrain the dis
semlnation of such libellous matter m dUunc-
t0r and allow to the party Injured his action for
damages, hut " may, and often does, also pro-
coed criminally against the offender, for his
offence against the State.
Although the distinction between common
law and equity Jurisprudence is one which an
unprofessional writer might not be expected to
appreciate, II Is indeed surprising to find an
author apparently ignorant OF It, who describes
himself az NJ. A. and " OF the New York bar"
1t will be news TO lawyers generally that the
common law enforces rights by means OF in
junction. This discovery is certainly original with
Mr.. Morgan. Those who have made even a cur
sorry study OF the law OF libel will also experience
a mid amazement at the assertion that the
dissemination OF hbeous matter can be en-
Joined at all. The author might have learned
better than this from Mr.. Townshend, whose
excellent work on the law OF libel has left no
room for any new American treatise on that
subject at present. 1t Is true, as there appears.
that the Court 81 star Chamber. ono OF the
most Infamous tribunals that ever existed, was
In the habit OF restraining the publication OF
libes and also that the celebrated Chief jus
tice scrogcs Of the Court Of Kings Bench was
| mn ed for Iti I'M ra
| proposition there laid down that as a general
rule the publication OF an alleged libel will not
be stayed los injunction" is not affected by such
| procodents. Since Mr.. T0wnshend's last edition
| was published, the Court OF Chanccry Appeal.
| In Englsnd has explicitly declared that neither
on principle nor authority has the Court of Chan.
Gerry jurisdiction To restrain the publication Of
libel as such. even II IL Is Injurious to property
Mr. Morgan can prontably consult this case
which he will Ind under the title Of the pru
Dental Assurance Company " Knott, In IA.
equity series OF the English Law Reports fol
March Of this year. at page l49.
| II l. plain that a work which is so loose anC
erroneous In its statement of elementary pro
| positions cannot be trusted as q guide to H.,
student. Where the errors are not 50 bald al
those We have touched upon, practitioners ais,
might be misled. Thus on page 205, II Is pos
tiyely asserted that an action will not lie TO
defamatory matter contained in pleadings
| THIS Is not true without qualification, but NJ
! Morgan neglects to limit II. Unless such de
famatory matter is pertinent and material {,
the contr yersy, Il will certainly support a Grim
inal action In this state. Gilbert v. The People
l DEMO, Az; and under the recent decision o
the Court Of Appeals In the case OF Marsh v
| Ellsworth, reported In the 5Oth n. Y. Rep. a
page 800, there seems no reason 10 doubt tina
IL will also sustain a civil action for libel.
So much for the accurate and reliable" char
acter Of the book, as far as It relates 10 the la,
Of libel. There are other chapters, on limo
cence, on contempt OF court, on originality, an,
on manuscripts, all crammed with facts culle'
from multtudinous sources, with considerable
industry but little discrimination, and an appaT
ent inability 10 appreciate their true bearing an'
relations In reference to the particular suhjec
under discussion; the whole leaving upon tn
mind Of the reader the impression Of an enter
tanning but useless tumble.
The most conspicuous padding In the volum
Is the reprint Of the case of Charles lteade agans
the proprietors OF the Round Tube, from th
sixth volume of Abbotts Practice Reports
which case never went higher than tho tria
court, whore Dir. Justice Clerke admitted som