Knox, the poems for young ladies selected by Dr. Goldsmith, poetical epitomes, preceptors, miscellanies, albums, beauties of modern writers, dramatists' garlands, mirror of living bards, and souvenirs of moral and religious poetry, most of which contained as large extracts from copyright authors as had been taken from the plaintiff's poems, without any application being considered necessary to the authors, and that it had always been considered an admitted right to publish bona fide selections from the writings of living authors whose works were copyright, and was constantly practised by various publishers of the greatest respectability. The defendants denied any intention of infringing the copyright of plaintiff in the selections they had made, and argued that so far from his copyright suffering any injury thereby, it would rather have the effect of promoting the sale of his works.

The Vice-Chancellor said the copyright prima facie was clearly in the plaintiff, and there was no question but that the things complained of were actually taken literally as they stood in his book, for it was not denied. Could it be said this was anything like an abridgment? The passages were taken wholesale, some poems entire, and some in very large extracts, and could not in any sense entitle the book to be considered as an essay or a book of criticism. Of the 799 pages in the defendants' book only 32 were devoted to a general discussion of the nature of the poetry of the nineteenth century, without any particular observation being appended to the particular extracts, and then followed the poems to the extent of 758 pages. He thought this

could not in common sense be called a book of criticism. If a critical note had been appended to each passage or to several passages, by way of illustration, or to show whence Mr. Campbell had borrowed an idea, or what idea he had communicated to others, it would be fair criticism; but here was a general essay, and then followed the vast mass of pirated matter which constituted the body of the volume. In the case of the "Encyclopædia Londinensis" there was a treatise containing only 118 pages, and 75 of them were taken from the "Encyclopædia," and there the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. It was not necessary for the Court to consider, whether the passages taken were the cream and essence of all that Campbell had written; it was plain they would not have been printed at all by the defendants if they had not been very attractive. The plaintiff had been admitted to be the composer of the poems, and they had been bodily collected by the defendants without any criticism at all, and therefore, prima facie, he thought the case was with the plaintiff. The only question was whether there had been such a damnum as would justify the application for an injunction, for injuria there clearly was. What had been done was against the right of the plaintiff, and he was the person best able to judge for himself. His Honour thought, in such a case, the safest rule was to follow the legal right and to grant the injunction; but if the defendants doubted how much damnum composed the injuria he had no objection to the plaintiff bringing an action to try the legal question.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER,

Sittings at Nisi Prius.

February 18.

THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND v. TOMKINS. EXCHEQUER BILL FRAUDS.

The Attorney-General, with whom were Mr. Kelly and Sir John Bayley, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Erle and Mr. Tomlinson for the defendant.

The Attorney-General stated that this was an action in which the Bank of England sought to recover from the defendant the sum of 8,000l. principal, advanced by them to him, together with interest thercon, from the month of October in last year. In answer to this claim the defendant had pleaded that he did not promise, as the plaintiffs by their declaration alleged; that he had paid the money in question, and also a setoff. This action arose on an advance which the plaintiffs made to the defendant at his instance on the 23rd of September, 1841, when the sum of 11,000l. was lent to him for one month, on the security of eleven Exchequer bills, of the supposed value of 1,000l. each, which he deposited with the plaintiffs, but of which number eight had since been discovered to be forgeries. The letter of the defendant, soliciting the advance, was to the effect that, if the bills were not redeemed by him at the expiration of the month, the plaintiffs were to be at liberty to dispose of them, and to repay themselves their loan with interest, the defendant being liable for any deficiency. At the expiration of the month the defendant redeemed three of these bills, and being

unable to take up the remainder, the plaintiffs, with his sanction, sold them, through their brokers, realizing enough to pay themselves the principal and interest upon their advance. The eight bills so sent into the market found their way on the same day into the hands of Messrs. Coutts, who on examination of them detected the fraud, and sent them to the Exchequer Office to be tested. There these documents were at once pronounced to be spurious, and were, together with many others which were suspected to be forgeries, impounded by the Comptroller-General. Upon this the holder applied to the plaintiffs, who at once refunded the proceeds arising from their sale, and now sought to indemnify themselves by this action against the defendant, he having refused to make good the loss sustained by the plaintiffs. The only question here was whether the defendant could say that he has paid this advance, or had any right to set off the proceeds of these spurious bills against the plaintiffs' demand for the advances necessary upon the redemption by them of these instruments when discovered to be void. The defendant could only set up that the bills he deposited were genuine, and such as he professed to place in the hands of the plaintiffs as a security. Upon this point there would be the most conclusive evidence against the defendant. It would be shown most clearly that the very eight bills deposited by him, and to be accounted for by the plaintiffs, were spurious.

A variety of evidence was gone into in support of the case for the plaintiffs, and amongst other witnesses Lord Monteagle was called, and examined by Mr. Kelly. "İ

am Comptroller-General of the Exchequer. There are three classes of Exchequer-bills, of which those issued for 66 supplies are the largest both in value and number. The bills in question purport to belong to that class, and are duplicates of others issued as "supply bills." These issue under special acts, called "the ways and means bills." The course observed in the issue of bills is as follows:-We receive directions from the Treasury to make out the bills required, and they are printed in duplicate, or I should rather say that each bill has a counterfoil, with two marks upon it. These counterfoils are distinguishable from the Exchequer-bills, inasmuch as they have no water mark on them presenting the word "Exchequer," which the bills have upon them. They vary also, inasmuch as the figures in the bills are expressed by words in the counterfoils, and vice versa of course. [Here his Lordship compared the bills and the counterfoil-book.] I see I am wrong in the latter respect. There is no such distinction; but there is a seal or stamp on the bill which there is not on the counterfoil. When there is to be an issue of Exchequer-bills there is first a preparation of paper for the purpose, which is always laid in by anticipation. Moulds are then cast for the particular bills, which remain with the Exchequer. From that office the moulds are sent to the paper-mill, under the custody of a special messenger, who remains at the mill while the paper is in process of manufacture, and brings back the moulds and the paper. When the issue is required, the plate is engraved, and the bills printed in the office; enough to satisfy the demand. Every plate

contains three bills and three counterfoils. These blanks are given to the junior clerk in the office, who numbers the counterfoils consecutively from 1 upwards. The blank bills are then marked doubly by the senior clerk, when they are separated from the counterfoils and stamped with the ancient device of the office, the portcullis. They are then placed in a cashbox, and brought to the ComptrollerGeneral or his assistant for signature. They are generally printed in books of 500 each. After they have been signed, they are counted over, and their number ascertained to be correct, when they are replaced in the box. At the time of signature there is brought a book, called the "signing book," which contains a record of the signature of every bill authenticated by the signature of the party signing the bills, the date at which he signed the bills entered therein, their number, value, and the act under which they are to be issued. When the bills are signed and counted by the clerk presenting them for signature, the party signing enters his name against them in the signing book, in proof of the fact. The bills are then locked up in a box having two locks, the keys of which are in the custody of two clerks, and so they remain till the day appointed for their issue, when they are handed over to the paymaster or his deputy, who gives a receipt for them, the box being opened in his presence by the two clerks. It follows from this, that no two genuine bills could be issued of the same tenour, number, and date; I think it impossible. The issue of such duplicates would be a violation of the law, and could only arise from great carelessness, or a direct violation of the law.

The statute 4 William 4th, c. 26, requires the signature of the Controller-general or the assistant. These are not my signatures. They do not profess to be. I believe them to be imitations of the signature of Mr. Perceval, the Assistant Controller. Cross-examined by Mr. Erle.The Exchequer-bill-office and the Pay-office are distinct. After the signature the bills are severed from each other. The order for the paper is given by the senior clerk about a year in anticipation, as it is thought to be better not to print the bills on fresh paper. There is always about a year's supply in hand. There is no account kept of the quantity of paper except by the chief clerk, who is not accountable to any one. He is the custos of all the stationery, and is responsible for the supplies. He is not bound to render any account of the paper used; but he has a paperbook as a check on the supply given by him. He is himself relied on as a proper check upon others. He or an assistant-clerk gives out the paper to be printed, and the quantity so given ought to be entered in a book in order to check the return by the printer; but there is no superior officer to examine that book. The chief clerk had access to the seal without any check. The seal is kept apart from the screw press, and is locked up in a chest which is accessible to the chief clerk. The key of that chest is locked up in a press, and may be said to be accessible to all the clerks, inasmuch as the press is so. Formerly the seal and the screw press used to be kept together, but they are separated now. The senior clerk numbers the blank bills and the junior the counterfoil, unless one be absent, when both are numbered by one VOL. LXXXIV.

only. They ought certainly to be numbered by two separate clerks, and if not, it is a violation of the rules of the office. The junior clerk generally cuts the bills off; but it is immaterial, I should say, who did it. The bills are almost uniformly signed at the office in my room, but there are exceptions. It is not essential that they should be signed there. According to antecedent usage the bills were sometimes signed in the country, often in various parts of London. I never signed out of town. The first issue were all signed by me. I have signed in places where I had not access to proofs of their genuineness; but they have always been taken away in the same box on the next morning, and examined at the office by counting, &c., before the signature is completed by the entries in the book of record. The books are all made up with 503 forms, but when brought for signature there are only 500 bills; the odd number is to make up for accidents, which are sometimes unavoidable. The counterfoils are kept by the chief clerk till they are sent off to the Paymasters'-office. If there was nothing to throw any doubt upon this bill, I should still have doubted whether this was Mr. Perceval's signature. I would not have acted upon it without reference to him, at any rate. At the same time, it is a better imitation than some I have seen. I have examined all the rejected bills.

Mr. Erle addressed the jury for the defendant, and Lord Abinger in summing up the case told the jury that the simple question which they had to try was whether the bills in question were forgeries or not.

The jury immediately found for the plaintiffs, damages 8,0007., with 3401. for interest.

Y

VICE CHANCELLORS'

COURTS.

to accept the trust, to the Merchant Tailors' Company, to the

March 14.
ATTORNEY-General v. LORD
CARRINGTON.

This suit, which was by information and bill, and which was in the matter of the free school and almshouses of Matthew Humberstone, in the parish of Humberstone, in the county of Lincoln, and also in the matter of the act 2 William 4th, c. 57 (the Charity Commissioners' Continuance Act), came on on exceptions to the Master's report, and on further directions. The suit was instituted by the Rev. Mr. Gedge, the vicar of Humberstone and the master of the school there, against Lord Carrington and the other trustees of the same, for the purpose of restraining the trustees from removing the plaintiff from his office of master, for the reopening of the school, for the appointment of new trustees in the room of some who had died, for the removal of the remaining trustees, and for other purposes, amongst which was a reference to the master to make proper regulations for the government of the school and charity. The master made his report, laying down certain rules, from some of which the present exceptions were filed. The history of the charity, which has been before the Court of Chancery upwards of 130 years, and the proceedings relating to which are reported in 1st Peere Williams's reports, p. 332, is shortly this-In 1708 Matthew Humberstone by his will, dated the 14th of March, devised all his real estate to the Drapers' Company, and in case of their refusing

Goldsmiths' Company in succes. sion, and desired and directed that such person as should be legally admitted by the said conservators of his will into the estate thereby granted and given for his maintenance, should take effectual care to elect and put in a person of sober life and good learning to be curate of the said parish of Humberstone, to be continued with the stipend or yearly salary thereinafter mentioned during his good conduct only, and he performing the service thereby enjoined and thought needful in such a station, and during the pleasure of the male heir of the name of Humberstone, who should succeed the testator in their several reversions, and upon default therein, he should dismiss him and choose another able person. He also directed such curate to teach the boys or youths of Humberstone and those of his tenants in the parishes of Laceby, Scartho, Wilsby, Clee, Titney, and Houlton, in case they should send their children, that all such boys and children might and should be freely educated in the use and practice of the English and Latin tongues as far as the end of the grammar and prosodia learned twice over, with teaching them to write a legible round hand, the use of arithmetic, and casting accounts, according to such books as should be provided for them to learn by. The testator then, among other things, gave a power to the male person of his name who should succeed to his estate to suspend the curate as being both minister and schoolmaster for any neglect in preaching, or in not teaching the boys the use of the English