Court Of Chancery, Tuesda...
LAIV OEPORT, IIrL.NkZALD, ater. some'isusCussi0ofwita-ar.-.txastotheprede. dence to,which-hisnmOtion wia. entiaed n moed, foian order to re. bcind 3n order pronounced by the Vice t;haricellor, - ana for an ih. !unct,o,a to regtrain the defendants, Peter Nicholson. and Thomias KelyqyIfromn proceeAiR, w'ith the publication,of-a.work called The Jr,actkcal BidIder.; The question wa ,onc of some novelty, and greatulpMrsance. In tlie'ear I18} theblefendantNicholson entered int an -agreement with. the plaintifFt,whp.isabookseler,. for the- jioblication of a-virk vritteii by himrtNici o.son), caUed The Ar- cMieturtrcra Dr'et onary, by,which agrce ment both ,partics were to be' .30intly mteresteda-in the work the expenser-of which wereto be de. frayed out of the prodluce of the sale, provided they. did not exceed .4,0w0l; -In co,nsequeneofthe,numerous plates- sc., the expenses o3f pllicati6n amnounted to 7,000l.;-and infI82.another agreement ,as enteredinto beween- thcsasie. pirie by. wbich .Mr. -Nichol -son, in. considerfti6n of-Mlr..Barfiecl foiegoing bis claiM upon him- for the extra3,00L,ancoaying him a iunn of 250L,relinquished all his xghtanititletothbworlc,anacoven,;nteden.eyeretowriteorpublijraniv abridgKienDtof, -or anypart,: or'abrdgment o - anvpart, -of the sa'd Wa rk;orwy other.,wor,kwhicliwiiscalcuatedtoimupedeorinjure the circuLatiQ,r0or. publicationgf.thb. aame2 .Notwithstanding this cove. nant, -MIr. Nicholson-in a;few Tnonths subsequently entered -into an -agreenient with the-pther dlefendant,- Ar.'Kelly, who-is,a respectable. bopcselte,rtio. witpa work caUed-The P,ractitial Bsiier, to be pub- -lh .dI we,Iekly. numberi, which went at once o oestroythe .rca- lation -of, T/e, _4ricitiictk-aD Dktionr*- .Ia addition to, many parts- of tbe lettcr prgss,;beipT tihe, samne iis. both .orka, -.the plates were- alo, ;jwfhi o Wing slight colourible, ; iriations, -qiite the. samne.- 'The pliintiff therefore, filed.s bill fgor. an hnjtnu-. tion againstL- both defendants, which the. Vice-Chancellor .grantbd in the first rinstance,;in the words of'.the coveuint-;-but-that.being too largeas ag&inst ir.Kelly he not being-boum byMAlr. Nichol- son's covenant to, publish noihing that could - ilitate against the sale of;the Arch:tcturd. Diwflaonar, thatijn ction gas-set-aside with the assent-of. theplaindifPs.counsel;: ,ndi another applied for1 conllnimgg the etricti6n-toAthepablication of the.work,1in qoestioll, -Mr. Kelly opposed thecapuliLcaion, ea the ground.that when he en.- t.er,gd into ths yrueeinnt with lr.! Nicholson rclative to his writing the work for him, he was not aare of hismctWenant with the plamnti, and-. moreover, ,that- although the nanie ,."Peter xcholSOn" twas to the work agreat.part of it waswritten by his -son; Iichael- Aigelo.. olo, who -bad .also designed 22-oDt`othe:40 phtes itcontained.. ilr.ieUr alXo contended hat he had .a right to publish the' work, as. being n,o infringement Pof -copyright;' and he produced upwards of lOkyolumes of. old spelling bDoks-arpanter'ebooks,and eheijofthat detcription, to sflowthatahire was takenftronione, arndhalf a line from another, and soon, aswasals tht casewith'theplaintiff's work. Aholy- day intervening -just then, his Honoar the V,e-Chancellor em- ployed his vacation in looking over these volumes, nd he declartd -that lie-found they coniainied.aU.that svas in the vork in-question; consequentl, there being,no copyrit ia them, there was no piracy ~in hsvr Th-pL Loan CU.AscELLOR asked if Mr. Nicholson had fiuishe4 hlitomposition of tlis work? ...-.. : -Mr. HCALD.understood not.. -MIr.;WAX&Fc ELD, on the other side, said it was alf written and- engrave, though not published... -. r.-SuGDEX (with Mr. HEALD) said that.a schedaule had been given in, stating-the numbers writteiiaid not published ;the publi.- catiobs since then had gone beyond that. bMr. -H:AL-D co1tinucd,_li&s Hpnoiur's. judgment seemed to be fo,unTed wholly on the denial of the- defendants that they wgre joint- owners of the work. .. *.The- LORD C,a>CnsLtoi ts%eI how many numbers hadbeen- published before the bill was file . ,Jlr. -WraXEFELD E aid that The first. number was published on the. 23d,of July ap the publihatioA continued weekly; the bill was filed on the lOtb of Novenber last.. . r. HIEALD proceeded - The defendant had stated that Inany of the Passages iu the p1lintiff'* work were tobe fonadin'Dr. Rees's En. cycloptcd1aq, which was.published before it- hut it appeared that lDr_ Rees had em,ployed,3Mr. Nipholson to write 'for. him;al.out the same time that lie was writingithe plaintiffVs -work: The learned cpansel here -read: the agreement between M:Ar. KEUy and Mr.-Nicholson, from which it anpeared that tbe. former was to pay the latter a cer- tain sum for writing " the-:*rk in- question'-' fr hiip.,f l'he Vice. Chancellor had held, -that because Mr. elly bad ,employed, Ir. Nicholsonj and -paid him so much to write the -work for bim, he was, therefore, and not Mlr. Nicholsqn, the author of the book. So that, -according to- this doctrine, a man who could neither;read. nor-write, 2night, provided he had money, be the author of the best work in the kingdom. The LoanD CIArNCELmoR asked if Alr. Nicholson was employed to write the whole work ? - . - - . I u-Mr. HxAzxY said, that according to the terms of- the agreement hewas. .: -- The,LoRD CQrArNCE-oLLx obsezved, thbta.man like Dr. Rees, composming.a work upon.Farious~ subjects,, ,#tbough -obliged to avail himself of the assistance.of difflrent persons skilled in thosesub- jects, might stiU be Wit&-to be the autbor of tat -work; 7bti that a man who ha employedLanctther. to write .a wholewoxk for, him, should neverthele6ssbe said to. e the author-of that work himself,- mightbe aUright, but to,him .(tle Chancellor) it was new.- Who, his Lordship asked, was the author of Dr. Jobnuon's Lies,t rm.1he 'Poet 4 fIe supposed it-was-.lr. Cadehl oi tlhe Strand. - - Mr. IIEALD continued his argument untill the Court rose. > 1 .- -COURT OF CHANQERY TvESnAr, Jtuxx 15; . a !7 ' ARFIELV.fXcfClOLSO MAD8AN4OTHlERK . -,