Gee v Pritchard
Ann Paxton Gee v William Pritchard and William Anderson (1818) 36 ER 670 is a landmark judgment of the UK Chancery court. The case related to what matters the court could consider, court consistency and what constituted property. Background. William Gee had been the lord of Beddington Park in Surrey. William Pritchard was his son and Mrs Ann Gee was Pritchard’s step mother. Mrs Gee had been on good terms with her step-son (who was also a Rev Pritchard) for numerous years and had corresponded, writing him letters about what she thought of his life  and giving him guidance. However, they ceased to be on good terms and Pritchard sought to publish the letters. Pritchard sent the original letters back to Mrs Gee with a letter saying he was returning the correspondence but he secretly made a copy of the originals. However, in a letter dated 14 May 1818, Mrs Gee was notified that Pritchard intended to publish the letters. Decision. The Court held the case could proceed on the fact of property but not on the idea of feelings or wounded feelings or a violation of a trust or pledge but rather an injury  to a property. Eldron LC held that "the Plaintiff (Mrs. Gee) had sufficient property in the original letters to authorise an injunction, unless she has by some act deprived herself of it", quoting Lord Chancellor Hardwicke in "Pope v Curl" "for at most the receiver has only a joint property with the writer." He repudiated an argument that the publication of letters would be restrained because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the Plaintiff. He said, "The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which the Court can take notice, as a case of  civil property, which it is bound to protect". Authorities. The judgment cited: The decision has subsequently been Cited in: