Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
rgvtsvz c u O D UEIR JVST ICE and v. Cdtfn JwnA Air. IitjI RsY stated this to bean aetiort brought by the plaintiff, ver and gilder, to recover frorn the de.'endlsnt, an auctioneer, liv. in 1'all-nsall, 101., the price of a pictturefrume fumished by the aintiff. The famme tlv' 1ad1e for a painting by hr. George Hey. r, cpreeurttgthetrial of' her late hisa esy the Queen, in thte ouse of ltIrde, and foretle purpo3e of exhibiting tlat picture. afr. auty had agreed with the painter to exhi,bit the picture, and he (Mr. arney) should shoT that hie was liable,:o pav for tte framie. t SUepPrttOf theplaintiff's case,several of his worknmen were call. I. ?it erse o, who de osed that Al r. Cauty had been frequently at crp dlut, sds(lo while the frame wat in progress, that he urgee bidngspeedily finisthed, as he said he was very desirous to have rdy for exibiginx the picture with b e the opening of the sessioni f ar.iamnent; that a very material alteration was made in the ane at the defendt'anrtequest and by 1his orders, and that it w as rereards delivcred at his motls, and wYas exhibited with the picture. Another witn;ss proved the valuc of the frame. lir. SCARLLTT, for the defendant, sail that the frame had ver been craered of the plaintiff, either by Ar. Cauty or by r. Iayter. The ltter gentleman hat! been in the labit of en. r /Lng the npintiifrto make frames for his pictures, and the plain. t -~'ooz..e; c' thl):culate upon the probability of kr. Agar ElUis, boh.ai ott e:ol thse picture;being willirg totake the fraokte inwhich t * O-lexhi!fcd, set about makine that which was the subject * &J c Aftr the exhibition had ended, Ilr. Ellis did not .l-it1tX; to .-y.tha Q lsrttfff`s frame, and it was sent back to him by ' t^ waut .' n a roraf of this represerntation, ,Ilr. Scarlett talled Air. C; Ela .-ier. vwho said1, that having been engaged bv Air. EAllis-int ha Quecn's Tirial, he menltioned the circum'stantce .. hdT. O. atla. - v-hom he had before erployed, and recommend. t9Sppln-. uself with wood, th t it might be properly sea. sened, into, z tL.e picture must have a frame, Mlr. Ellis should rder it of htim, By an agreement which he (hir. Hayter) made nith MIr. Cauty, the latter wasa to pay all the expenses attending the thibition, in wlhich that of the frame was included. The frame was alteed at ir. Cauty's request. Mrt. Ellis did not approve of thc frame; the witness thought that hit. Cauty oaght to pay tbr it. The LoenC edeEr JUSTICE asked )r. Scarlett wbathe thought of the case now; and as the counsel wazi not prepared to carry his defence furthert his LIqrlinhip charged tbe jury, who returned a vet dict for the plaitiff for g51. MtEDLAtD V. xNIGOIIT AND LACEY. Mlr. ADorLPeeus stated tlis to be an sction brought by the plain. ttff an en,raver, against the defendants, to recover damages whsich hr had Sustain6l, in consequence of their having piratically ptrilish. I-d copies of pLites, the property of the plaindff. The ates con. sL-ted of likenesses of Ihurtell, frunt, and Probert. Thlhey were etugraved at some expense and pains, fronm drawiIIn which were tnken by a relation of the plaintit, iu the court at flertford, in De. cember last. Having been ensgraved by the plaintiff, they were pub. Ilhed by hirn, and sold by 'lr. Cribb. a print-seller in London, on his account, and at first they sold very weU at the price of one shil- ling each. After a shoTt time, iowever, the plaintiff found that the sale had fallen ofF, and he almost immedliately discovered that this had been occasioned by the detendants having published an ac- count oT the trial of the persons ivhose portraits he had engraved, in itie frontispiece to which trial was a p late, in which the portraits of the thiree culprits were closely copied. The amo-unt of the damage stistained by the plaintiff aight be estimated by the advantage which thie defendants had derived from the ucie they had made of his pro- perty, and that it hal been highly lucrative to themn could not be doubted, when it should be known that they had sold 10,000 copies of their first edition, and had afterwatds found it necessary to have another copy of the pirated plate engra ved for other copies. He then called William Mledland, the son of the plaintiff, who said that lie made d rawings mi thie court at liertford, in December last, of ThurtcU, Hunt, and Probert. These tlrawings were afterwards engraved by the plaintifi (The witness produced the plates.) There were sorne slight variations between the dIravings of the witness and the engrav- ings of the plaintiff, the latter having addedl, of his owvn invention, thc tie of the neckcloth and the folding of the arms in the portraitto imorove the effect. Examined by Air. GURNEY.-Wi ness made the sketches on his barnker's book. lie hal not intended to make them previously, but finding that he had a good opportunity, front his situation as clerk to the magistrates, and sitting at the end of their bench, he did so, and gave the drawings afterwarde to his father. John Erry proved the purchase of a copy of" Pierce Egun's Ac. coesit of the Trrial of Th4urSel," at Mlessrs. Knight and Lacey's, on the 14th of January last, and another on the 29th of thesamemonth. Charles Atotalcrt. Esq.. R. A., on lookiug at the engravings pub. lished by the plaintiff and those in the defendants' pamphlet, had iro doubt tfiat the one set were copied fronm the other. itr. H. AMeyer, an engraver, deposed to the same effeet. Cross-exarmined by Mr. GuRXEY.-He could not tell what the cost of these engravins might have been. Re-examrned.-lle would willingl:, have given ten guineas for caph of the drawings before they wero engraved. Mlr. Cribb, prinvieller, began to sel the plaintiff's plate in Decenn- ber last; they at first sold very well; but on a sudden the sale ceased. Three hundred copies were sent to him, a few of which were left when the sudden cessation took plact. The sale was previously what he called brisk. If the plates and copyright had been brought to hin, he would have given h1. or 101. a-piece for each, and would have ex. pected to make a prorit of them. Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLErT.-Can't tell exactlyt'he day on which he first receiced the plates, but thinks thev came about the nmiddle of Decenmber. The sale continued about a m3opth. Has none of the prints of Thurtell left, and very few of the others. Mr. Fores, printseller, of Piccadilly, deposed that he had sold the plates readily at first, but that afterwards they declined, in conse. quence of the publication of Knight end Lacev's account of the trial. A t this penod of the trial an ofte: was maee by the defendants' counsei to permnit the plalintiff to taks a verdict for 60L., which being acrep ted by the plaintiff's counsel, the jury returned a verdiet accor. slingly-For the plaintiff, .501. d U;URT OP KINGS BENCH. GY-TTLnUAY T. TTTv I GARPAytTAT v. r .--o