Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/858
long since gone to rest, to revive no more. And as to the case of Ponder v. Bradyll, it is no more than a declaration, in the book of a special pleader; and if the defendant printed and exposed to sale 4000 books, he was left in possession of them.
But the respondents, as if conscious that the ground of bye-laws, ordinances, etc. is not tenable, resort to a Court of Equity; and rely much upon the injunctions which have issued out of the Court of Chancery. These injunctions may be all drawn into a narrow compass, and it will be seen, that they do not apply to the point in question.
I. Injunctions before the 8th Ann, c. 10.
15th November 1681. Stationers v. Lee, for printing Psalters and Almanacks.
17th November 1681. Stationers v. Wright, for publishing Almanacks.
9th and 22d February 1709. Stationers v. Partridge, for selling Almanacks.—All these are prerogative rights.
II. Injunctions upon the right given by the statute of Queen Ann.
9th November 1722. Naplock v. Curl, for printing Prideaux's Directions to Church-wardens.
[138] 11th December 1722. Tonson v. Clifton, for Sir Richard Steele's Conscious Lovers.
19th and 23d May 1729. Gulliver v. Watson, for printing Pope's Dunciad.
26th November 1735. Motte v. Falkiner, for Pope and Swift's Miscellanies.
27th January 1736. Walthoe v. Walker, for Nelson's Festivals.
6th December 1737. Ballex v. Watson, for Gay's Polly.
13th March 1740. Gyles v. Wilcox, for Hale's Pleas of the Crown.
19th May 1740. Read v. Hodges, for the History of Peter the Great.
6th November 1757. Tonson v. Mitchell, for Byng's Expedition to Sicily.
III. Injunctions for printing unpublished MSS. without licence from the author.
24th May 1732. Webb v. Rose, for Webb's Conveyancer.
5th June 1741. Pope v. Curl, for printing Pope's Letters.
13th June 1741. Forrester v. Walker, for Forrester's Reports.
————Duke of Queensbury v. Shebbeare, for Lord Clarendon's life.
Trinity term 1768. Macklin v. Richardson, for printing Love A-la-mode.
IV. Injunctions as to old books, after the twenty-one years granted by the 8th Ann.
9th June 1735. Eyre v. Walker, for the Whole Duty of Man. This could not be the Old Duty of Man; if it was, the right must have been founded upon an assignment from the author, but the author is unknown to this hour.
V. Injunctions relative to books, after the twenty-eight years given by the 8th Ann.
Trinity term 1765. Millar v. Donaldson, for Thomson's Seasons, Pope's Iliad, Swift's Works, with the Life and Notes by Dr. Hawkesworth.—As to Swift's Works, the Life and Notes being within the statute, the injunction was continued; but as to Thomson's Seasons, and Pope's Iliad, being beyond the twenty-eight years, the injunction was dissolved. And from all these cases it appears, that the general question touching the common law right has never been determined by any Chancellor.
Mechanical instruments, and also prints made by engravers, have ever been open to all artists, unless secured to the inventor by patent, or act of parliament. Between such inventions and copies of books, no sensible distinction can be made. An orrery represents the planetary system. He who makes one after the first model, takes the science of astronomy as represented by the [139] orrery; and he who prints a book, takes the author's sentiments.—Where is the difference? Prerogative copies, such as the Bible, and books of Divine Service, do not apply to the present case; they are left to the superintendance of the Crown, as the head and sovereign of the state,
842