mit them to be published in the same way. The question then was, whether the principle did not apply here? If it could be so contrived that a case could be made out for the decision of the Court of King's Bench, whether any action could lie for performing this piece, admitting what the performance was, and subject to any arrangement between the parties, it would be the best course that could be pursued. The Attorney-General intimated, in answer to what had fallen from Mr Shadwell, that, for months before the tragedy was published, it had been announced as forthcoming; that the scene where it was laid was known; and that, therefore, Mr Elliston had an opportunity of getting the necessary dresses in readiness.

Mr Shadwell.-As to the question of the intermediate representation, while the matter is pending, my client has no objection to come to an understanding, if Mr Elliston will make an affidavit that none of the persons who acted in the play had any knowledge of its contents, so as to be able to study it before Saturday morning.

The Lord Chancellor.-I don't look at that at all. If you drive me to decide in the first instance, I must do so in the best way I can. The difficulty is, how to provide satisfactorily for all parties, until the question is decided. If a man pirates a work, an action on the case is brought, an account of the profits of the sale is kept, and the proceeds are paid over to the proper person. But here it is very difficult to ascertain the damage suffered. The better way will be, if the King's Bench decide that an action can be sustained, to appoint some third person to say, what Mr Murray has lost, and what profits Mr Elliston has made.

Mr Shadwell. It is not the damages we look to; I will state what is the fact.

The Lord Chancellor.-I cannot

agree, that every man who writes a tragedy intends that it shall be per. formed. I should be extremely sorry if we were obliged to see all the tragedies that are written.

Mr Shadwell. Lord Byron is by no means desirous that his play should be represented; and Mr Murray, who publishes for him, feels very anxious to comply with his wishes.

The Lord Chancellor.-That line of conduct does Mr Murray great credit. With respect to the subject itself, all I can say about it is, that a proposition has been thrown out; and if you trust me so far as to look into the subject, I will to-morrow send you my decision. If, in the meantime, you can enter into an arrangement, let me know it. I shall then have lost nothing, except so much time.

The Attorney-General.-We are satisfied with what your lordship proposes.

Mr Shadwell stated, that his client was anxious to have the question settled once for all.

The Lord Chancellor.-I will prepare myself to decide; and you shall have the result, if you send to my house at one to-morrow.

The Attorney-General said that the play had been well received. Therefore, no injury had been done to Lord Byron's feelings. It was very true, the tragedy had been curtailed; but that was the fate of all plays-not excepting those of Shakespeare. He hoped his lordship would not be troubled to decide.

The Lord Chancellor.-It is a very important thing to so respectable a publisher as Mr Murray, that this subject should be settled once for all. But my opinion will not settle the law once for all. And if I determine to continue the injunction, I would nevertheless send the parties to a court of law, to see whether an action will lie in a case of this nature.

Mr Shadwell. We must go to a

court of law on a case, not by way of

action.

The Attorney-General.-There can be no action. There are no facts on which to join issue. Your lordship is aware, that the play has been advertised at one of the minor theatres, for Monday.

It was intimated, that an injunction was preparing for that theatre.

Mr Shadwell.-My client has so much dealing with authors of eminence, that he wishes the question to be set at rest.

After some further conversation, it was agreed, that if the Lord Chancellor determined to continue the injunction, a case should be made out for the decision of the Court of King's Bench, in order to settle the law upon the subject.

The question, we believe, was not again brought forward.

MURRAY AGAINST RUNDEll, for COPYRIGHT OF COOKERY BOOK.

Court of Chancery, Nov. 3.

Mr Horn, on the part of the plaintiff, prayed his lordship to dissolve an injunction which the defendant had obtained, to restrain his client from publishing a work on a very interesting subject, Cookery. The circumstances of the case were as follows:-Some time previous to the year 1805, the defendant, Mrs Rundell, who was a lady of great respectability, had composed and collected several receipts and observations on the important art of cooking, of which she was generously anxious that society should have the benefit. Her only object was to make the book find its way into the world with that sort of eclat which was calculated to insure its becoming fashionable; and, therefore, her first object

was to find out some person through whose auspices she could introduce it to the west end of the town. She had the good fortune to find a gentleman of all others the most likely to promote the circulation of her literary labours on this ancient and important art and mystery. Upon the shelves of Mr Murray it would become the companion of the works of the most celebrated poets, historians, and philosophers, and with them she fancied it would descend to posterity. This, to an author, and a female author, actuated by the laudable vanity of seeing her work so ushered forth to general attention, was sufficient reward. She therefore assigned her manuscripts to the plaintiff, Mr Murray, the bookseller, with liberty to publish it for his own use and benefit; with this restriction, however, that her name should not appear as the author. Mr Murray found, that the receipts were in many respects imperfect, and required classification; he, therefore, at his own expense, placed the manuscript under the revisal of a person to render it fit for publication. He also suggested to Mrs Rundell the propriety of making several additions to the work, which she accordingly made. When the work was at length ready for publication, it was found that a title-page was wanting, which Mrs Rundell had omitted to furnish. The task of composing one devolved upon Mr Murray, and the book, which was destined to add so largely to the comfort and happiness of the people of this country, was ushered into the world under the title of "A New System of Domestic Cookery, founded upon principles of economy, and adapted to the use of private families, by a Lady." This publication was effected entirely at the expense of Mr Murray, and the profits of the work did not at first make an adequate return for the money he had expended upon it. However, the

sale increased, and in 1807 Mr Murray thought he might venture to publish a second edition of the book, with many alterations and improvements, among which was the addition of a table of contents, which he employed a person to compose. He also requested Mrs Rundell to furnish him with some observations on carving, and the fair author accordingly dished him up an essay on that subject. Mr Murray, however, was not satisfied with the manner in which this essay was served up, and he was compelled to give it to another disciple of Apicius, to be set in proper order. Anxious that every possible light should be thrown on the subject, Mr Murray caused nine plates to be drawn and engraved, illustrative of the sublime mystery of carving. The plaintiff, too, added diverse new receipts of his own, together with some most interesting matter, under the title of "Bills of Fare for Family Dinners." In short, he made an entirely new arrangement of the work for the second edition, which was published in 1809; and in doing this he incurred great expense. The plaintiff had since that time published several new editions of the book, with many farther improvements, so that he calculated that onefourth of the matter contained in the last edition of the work was supplied by him. There was now a great demand for the book; which demand, it was but reasonable to infer, was occasioned solely by the improvements which Mr Murray had effected upon the work, and to the exertions which he had made to circulate it. The learned Counsel said, that he now came to the point which had induced him to address his lordship on the present occasion. It appeared that Mrs Rundell, after having for so many years surrendered up to Mr Murray all right in the work, wished now to resume the power which she had abandoned, and had obtained an injunction from his

Honour the Vice-Chancellor, prohibit ing Mr Murray from publishing the work. It was somewhat difficult to understand what were the grounds of this conduct on the part of Mrs Rundell. He (Mr Horn) thought he should be able to satisfy his lordship, by the evidence of a letter of Mrs Rundell, that that lady had resigned all property in the work. This letter was written in answer to one addressed to Mrs Rundell by Mr Murray. That gentleman being at Edinburgh in September, 1808, in which city Mrs Rundell was also residing, thought himself bound in gratitude, as the work had turned out more profitable than he had expected, to make the lady some acknowledg ment. Under the influence of this feel. ing, he sent her the following letter:

"MY DEAREST Madam,

"The unexpected occurrence of some business induces me to solicit your par don for being obliged to delay the plea. sure of attending you until Monday morning. In the meantime, I am happy to avail myself of this first opportunity of sending the inclosure, which I trust you will feel it as highly honourable in you to receive, as it is gratifying in me to have such means for offering. Although your gift to me has proved far more valuable than I expected, yet it has added little to the gratefulness which I have so long entertained for a friendship which it is my highest pride to maintain, and which must ever render me your obliged servant,

"JOHN MURRAY.”

The Lord Chancellor.-That's good cooking.

Mr Horn. The enclosure spoken of in the letter was a draft on Mr Murray's banker for 1501. Mrs Rundell returned an answer to Mr Murray in the following terms :

"MY DEAR SIR,

"Your very handsome and most unexpected present I have just received, and can truly say I never had the smallest idea of any return for what I considered, and which really was, a free gift to one whom I had long regarded as my friend. If in truth you have found my little work productive so far above your expectations as to render your very obliging enclosure any satis. faction to your own feelings, I will not affront your noble sentiment by returning it; although your persuasion of its being honourable to my poor abilities is really necessary to make me believe I do not err in accepting it. I beg to return you my best acknowledgments, my dear sir, and to assure you of what, however, I hope you do not doubt, I am your obliged friend and obedient

servant,

"MARY ELIZA Rundell."

It might be seen from this letter, that Mrs Rundell did not accept this money from any mercenary motive; she did not receive it in the shape of payment, but as a testimony of merit which could not fail to be agreeable to the feelings of an author. He could not conceive how it was possible for Mrs Rundell, after writing that letter, to come into a court of equity. The defendant might contend, either that she never did give the work to Mr Murray, or that if she did, a legal assignment was wanting, and this question might be decided at law; but she does not choose to meet the case at law, but has brought it into equity. He considered it a breach of good faith towards Mr Murray for the defendant to come into equity to ask relief.

Mr Heald then addressed the Court for the defendant, and contended that Mrs Rundell had not dispossessed herself of her right to the work by any act of her own, and that by suffering Mr Murray to publish it for fourteen

years, she had done so with the view, that at the end of that period it would again revert to her; nor was it to be contended that Mr Murray's "cravings of appetite" ought not to have been satisfied in the fourteen years, when the very extensive sale of the work had fully repaid him every expense he had been at, and given him in addition very considerable profits. The work, of which so much had already been said, was generally admitted to possess considerable merit. Even the reading of it did not fail to give one an appetite.

The Lord Chancellor.—Then hand the book up to me.

Mr Heald then proceeded to argue, that there had been no legal assignment of the work to Mr Murray, because, as his lordship knew, the Act of Parliament required the assignment to be drawn out in writing, and attested by two witnesses; and in that case the assignment would hold good for only fourteen years, unless renewed at the expiration of that term. Therefore, if there had been a regular assignment of the work to Mr Murray, instead of a gift, as in the present case, the right of publication would have devolved to Mrs Rundell at the end of fourteen years. How, then, could it be contended, that Mrs Rundell was placed in a different situation from the effect of a gift than if there had been a legal assignment?

The Lord Chancellor observed, that all Mr Murray's injunction implied was, that Mrs Rundell had no right to publish the work with Mr Murray's embellishments. The question was, whether Mrs Rundell should publish the work without the embellishments, or whether Mr Murray should publish the embellishments without the work embellished. It might be necessary to consider in this case whether Mr Murray had a right to exclude Mrs Rundell from publishing the work; and in

the view of the case which he at that time took, it appeared to him that though Mrs Rundell might not succeed in restraining Mr Murray from publishing the original work, yet that gentleman could not succeed in restraining her, or any other person, from publishing it.

Mr Heald said, he would be satisfied, for his part, to take what had fallen from his lordship as judgment in the cause. He called upon his lord. ship to maintain the injunction on the same argument which he had before urged, namely, that if Mr Murray had obtained a legal assignment of the copyright, the right of publishing would have returned to Mrs Rundell at the end of fourteen years. The learned Counsel then observed, that Mr Murray had been fully remunerated for every expense he had incurred in publishing the work, though it would appear that he had not yet satisfied his craving appetite.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the question was not, whether or not Mr Murray possessed the copyright, but whether Mrs Rundell ought not to obtain a remedy for her alleged grievances, at law, instead of equity. With regard to what had been said respecting the profits which Mr Murray had obtained, it ought to be considered not only what he had gained by the expense and trouble he had employed on that work, but also what he might have gained if he had employed the same trouble and expense in another work exclusively his property.

Mr Pepys also addressed the Court for Mrs Rundell. He observed, that when Mr Murray's case came originally before his lordship, it stood on quite different grounds to those on

which it was now supported. Mr Mur. ray, in his bill, had stated, that onefourth of the book was his original composition; but being called upon by Mrs Rundell's answer, to point out such parts as were written by him, he was compelled to acknowledge, that his whole work was the production of the title-page, the index, and the table of contents. The title-page was Mr Murray's greatest achievement. He said, that he believed the sale of the work depended in a great measure on having an attractive title; and then he described the manner in which he, with infinite labour, composed the title page. He (Mr Pepys) could fancy he saw Mr Murray rising from the completion of his arduous task, his eye glistening with rapture, and his whole frame labouring under the effects of the inspiration which had ena. bled him to perfect his masterpiece of composition. The learned gentleman next stated, that Mrs Rundell had given Mr Murray the copyright for the first fourteen years only, as a remuneration for the expense which he incurred in publishing the book; it never was her intention to abandon all future claim upon the work. It was admitted that Mrs Rundell had the legal title. Mr Murray had never attempted to try the question at law; and the question now to be decided was, whether the Court would grant Mrs Rundell the relief she was entitled to, or would compel her to seek a remedy at law for every invasion of her copyright.

The Lord Chancellor finally stated, that he did not consider a court of equity the proper place to decide the question, and that it ought to be tried in a court of law.