Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[graphic][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

(Before VICE-CHANCELLOR Sir W. M. JAMES.)

“The plaintiffs, Messrs. Jarrold and Sons, of Paternoster Row, London, and proprietors of Dr. Brewer's Guide to Science, instituted this suit for the purpose of restraining the sale and publication of the Class-Book of Modern Science, published by the defendant, Mr. John Heywood, of 141 and 143, Deansgate, Manchester.

“Mr. Kay, Q.C., and Mr. Westlake were counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. F. C. J. Millar were counsel for the defendant.”

The cause was argued in the Court of Vice-Chancellor James, on November 23, 24, 25, and on December, 2, 3, 6, and 7, 1869."

EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF THE TRIAL. Mr. Fry, Q.C., for defendant said: “On the other hand, the defendant's authors were practised writers, the authors (besides works on Science) of a considerable number of books for schools and general readers—a list of which was read to the court,-while from their professional experience before writing their 'Class-Book of Modern Science, they were acquainted both with the tastes and capacities of the class of pupils for which they wrote, and with the subjects on which their book treats.

A mass of fresh materials has been brought forward, and my learned friends (Mr. Kay and Mr. Westlake) have scarcely mentioned the ‘Bill' of Complaint."

“Mr. Kay: I am not responsible for the ‘Bill,' your Honour.” “Mr. Westlake : The ‘Bill' is not mine." "Mr. Fry followed Mr. Kay through the whole of his speech, and dealt with each passage that had been opened by the other side. The same process--of comparing passages and citing numerous authorities—was gone through, as had been adopted in repelling the charges in the 'Bill,' the learned counsel (Mr. Fry) remarking on many of the citations that they were evidently the source from which the plaintifs author had taken the very Questions and Answers which they now claimed as their own exclusive property-pirated, as they plainly were, and which thoy had the assurance now to ask the Court, for their benefit, to restrain other authors from using. The learned counsel (Mr. Fry) furth

ences in form between plaintiffs' and defe charged as fraud on the defendant's

Skill

Deen

6

in altering for the purpose of disguising the source of their information, were really differences from the original sources altered by the plaintiffs? author for the purpose of disguising the sources to which he was indebted for his book."

“After going through every passage challenged in Court, and dealing more at length with those specially assailed by plaintiffs, particularly setting forth that the plaintiff's' author, in relation to the influence of lime on carbonic acid gas, did not appear to understand the difference between

quick lime' and 'slaked lime, the learned counsel (Mr. Fry), having spoken for a good part of three days, submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to sustain their charge, and he appealed to his Honour to dismiss the Bill."

Mr. Millar (for defendant) said: “In their ‘Bill,' in the present cause, they (plaintiffs) claimed, as their own exclusive speciality,' the right to make phenomena the handmaid of science, and not science the handmaid of phenomena.' What that might mean was not so plain, as the plaintiffs had not told the Court how many phenomena' it takes to make a handmaid !' Now, abandoning their own 'Bill,' they found their claim to the interference of the Court on the Questions, and contend that Questions once answered in their book, however imperfectly, are never to be asked in any subsequent book, though the answers to be given are wholly different. Again, the Court had been told that the Questions are everything; that these once asked suggest the Answers; and that, then, the Answers are easily supplied; but it was very singular that the plaintiffs' author, in his Preface to the 'Guide,' actually says that the Questions in his book 'were often more easily asked than answered !'

Attempts had been made in the ‘Bill,' and again by his learned friend (Mr. Westlake) to prove the existence of common errors in the two books; but in every case, without one single exception, the attempt had signally failed. The plaintiffs had found errors in their own book, and these they had attempted to foist into defendant's book ; but in every case an examination of the passages proved that the plaintiffs' book was the sole source of those errors. There were, however, a great number of errors in the plaintiffs' book which they had not even tried to parallel in the defendant's book. He would read just one, which, after all their alleged care and 'expense' in revising and correcting, to make their book ‘keep pace with the progress of science, they had allowed to appear, at least as late as the 21st edition of their book. On page 274 of the plaintiffs' book it is taught that ' Forty-seven and a half pounds of carbonic acid gas weigh just as much as one hundred pounds of common air.'” (Laughter).

Amongst other things commented upon as errors in plaintiffs' book, was the statement, p. 355, that “. Rain' purifies the air, by setting in motion the stagnant contents of sewers and ditches,".

'-an odd method, it was remarked, of “purifying the air.”

The Vice-Chancellor reserved his judgment.

[Throughout the Trial, Dr. Brewer, plaintiffs' author, and the two authors of the defendant were present in court, the latter incessantly engaged--as appeared-in selecting suitable citations and parallel passages for the use of defendant's counsel, from their “small scientific library.]

[Continued at end of book.

[ocr errors]

COURT OF CHANCERY.

IMPORTANT COPYRIGHT SUIT.

JARROLD V. HEYWOOD.

(Before VICE-CHANCELLOR Sir W: M. JAMES.)

“The plaintiffs, Messrs. Jarrold and Sons, of Paternoster Row, London, and proprietors of Dr. Brewer's Guide to Science, instituted this suit for the purpose of restraining the sale and publication of the Class-Book of Modern Science, published by the defendant, Mr. John Heywood, of 141 and 143, Deansgate, Manchester.

“Mr. Kay, Q.C., and Mr. Westlake were counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. F. C. J. Millar were counsel for the defendant.”

“ The cause was argued in the Court of Vice-Chancellor James, on November 23, 24, 25, and on December, 2, 3, 6, and 7, 1869.”

[ocr errors]

EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF THE TRIAL. Mr. Fry, Q.C., for defendant said: “On the other hand, the defendant's authors were practised writers, the authors (besides works on Science) of a considerable number of books for schools and general readers—a list of which was read to the court,—while from their professional experience before writing their Class-Book of Modern Science, they were acquainted both with the tastes and capacities of the class of pupils for which they wrote, and with the subjects on which their book treats.

“A mass of fresh materials has been brought forward, and my learned friends (Mr. Kay and Mr. Westlake) have scarcely mentioned the · Bill' of Complaint.'

“Mr. Kay: I am not responsible for the ‘Bill,' your Honour.” “Mr. Westlake : The ‘Bill' is not mine." “Mr. Fry followed Mr. Kay through the whole of his speech, and dealt with each passage that had been opened by the other side. The same process--of comparing passages and citing numerous authorities—was gone through, as had been adopted in repelling the charges in the 'Bill,' the learned counsel (Mr. Fry) remarking on many of the citations that they were evidently the source from which the plaintif's author had taken the very Questions and Answers which they now claimed as their own exclusive property-pirated, as they plainly were, and which thoy had the assurance now to ask the Court, for their benefit, to restrain other authors from using. The learned counsel (Mr. Fry) further pointed out that the differences in form between plaintiffs' and defendant's Questions, which had been charged as fraud on the defendant's authors, and attributed to their skill

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »