You are on page 1of 21
PRINCE ALBERT 9. STRANGE ET AL. om Mr. E. G. White, for the committee of the estate, contended that the costs ought to be borne either by the mortgagor, or by the cestui que trust. ‘Tax Lonp Cnancmizon — After referring to the express declara- tion of trust contained in the deed and to the finding of the Master, that the lunatic was a trustee of the mortgage, held that the costs, which had been occasioned by the Innacy, ought not to fall upon the lunatic’s estate, nor upon the party beneficially entitled to the money, but that they must be borne by the mortgagor. © BETWEEN °25 ‘His Royal Highness Prince ALBERT . . . . Plaintiff, AND WM. STRANGE, JASPER TOMSETT JUDGE, JASPER A. F. JUDGE, and her Majesty's ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Defendants.? 1849, January 26, 97, 29, 90. February 8. ‘Tho right and property of an author or composer of any work, whether of ltera- ture, art, oF science, in such work unpublished and Kept for his private wie or pleasure, entiles the owner to withhold the same altogether, or 2 far an be may please, from the knowledge of others; and tho Court will interfere to prevent the invasion ofthis right by the publication of a catalogue containing 4 description of such work." ‘The Court will interfere by injunction to prevent a party availing hiswelf in any ‘manner of «tile arising out of a violation of right or breach of contract or confidence. ‘The cases in which the Court refuses to interfere by injunction until the logal right is established at law have no application to cates in which the Court ex- cercis an original and independent jurisdiction to proven a wrong arising from s violation of right or breach of contract oF confidence, 18. C., 1H. &T. 1; 18 Jur. 109; 2 De G. & 8. 652. * See 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (4th Am. ed.) 1647; 2 Kent (11th ed.) 980 2. 1, ia which the editor, referring to this point in the decision of this case of Prince Albert». Strange, says: ‘a write in the ‘ London Jurist" (Feb., 1849), inti- mates doubts, and with apparent justice, of the correctness of this position. It ia certaioly carrying the right of authors to a great extent to restrain by injune- tion the commonication, not only of the works themselves, but the fact of their ‘existonce, and the designation of the mode of their existence.” See Thomson . The University of London, 12 W. R. 734, (19) 995 ‘CASES IN CHANCERY. ‘A party baving, at the uit of A. and B., submitted to an injunction restraining bins from pl . the work of A. and B. respectively, can not object to an injunction granted on the application of A. restraining the publication of a catalogue or description of the etchings, on the ground that it is too extensive, as not clearly identifying which of such etchings belong. exclusively to A. Affidavits filed in support of statements introduced into the bill by amendment, after injanetion granted, and tending to eupport the injunction, cannot be read on a motion to dissolve that injunction (p. * 47]. ‘Tae original bill in this case was filed on the 20th October, 1848, by his Royal Highness Prince Albert, against William Strange, a printer and publisher in London, and her Majesty's Attorney-General. The other parties were subsequently made de- fendants by amendment. The bill, as amended, prayed that the defendants might be ordered to deliver up to the plaintiff all im- pressions and copies of the several etchings respectively in the bill ‘mentioned made by the plaintiff, and that the defendants, and their servants, agents, and workmen, might, in the mean time, be ro- strained from exhibiting the gallery or collection of etchings in the bill mentioned, or any such etchings, and from making or permit- ting to be made, any engravings or copies of the same, or any *26 of them ; and from in any manner publishing * the same, or any of them, and from parting with or disposing of the same, or any of them; and that the defendants, their servants, agents, and workinen, might be in like manner restrained from selling, or in any manner publishing, and from printing, the descriptive cata- logue in the bill mentioned, or any work being, or purporting to bo, catalogue of the said etchings ; and that all the copies of the said catalogue in the possession or power of the defendants might be given up to be destroyed, and for further relief. On the original bill, and the affidavits filed in support of it, an injunction was, on the 20th October, 1848, granted against the defendant Strange in the terms above prayed. This injunction was subsequently, on the 6th November, 1848, extended to the other defendants so far as the etchings were concerned. The defendant Strange then put in his answer, and having done so, aud without raising any question as to the etchings, moved, on the 7th De- comber, 1848, before the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, to dissolve the injunction, so far as it restrained him from printing the cate- logue, or any work purporting to be a catalogue of the said etch- [20] PRINCE ALBERT ¥. STRANGE ET AL. #26 ings. The following are the facts raising the question at issue between the parties. ‘The bill which was amended and re-amended (the passages introduced by amendment are distinguished by ital- jes) stated that her Majesty the Queen and the plaintiff respeo- tively, had occasionally, for their amusement, mado drawings and etchings, being principally of subjects of private and domestic - interest to themselves, and of which etchings they had mado im- pressions for their own use, and not for publication; that for the greater privacy such impressions had been for the most part made by means of a private press kept for that purpose, and the plates themselves had been ordinarily kept by *her Majesty * 27 under lock, and the impressions had been placed in some of the private apartments of her Majesty at Windsor, and in such apartments only; that the defendants Strange, Judge, and J. A. F. Judge, and their confederates, had in some manner obtained some of such impressions, which had been surreptitiously taken from some of such plates, and had thereby been enabled to form, and had formed, a gallery or collection of euch etchings, of which they in- tended to make a public exhibition without the permission of her ‘Majesty and the plaintiff, or either of them, and against their will ; that the said defendants and their confederates had compiled and prepared a work which had been printed and published by Strange, of which the title-page was: “A descriptive Catalogue of the Royal Victoria and Albert Gallery of Etchings (then followed a quotation from Shakespeare). London. Every purchaser of this Catalogue will be presented (by permission) with a facsimile of the autograph of either her Majesty or of the Prince Consort, en- graved from the original; the selection being left to the purchaser. Price Sixpence.” ‘The bill then set out various passages from a preface or introduction to this catalogue, containing general re- marks laudatory of the performances mentioned in it. The cata logue itself comprised a list of sixty-three several etchings which the bill set out, together with some examples of the descriptive and other remarks which were under each heading in the catalogue. The bill proceeded to state that the several etchings were so made and from such drawings as in the catalogue mentioned ; that such catalogue and descriptive and other remarks could not have been compiled or made except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings so obtained and surreptitiously taken as aforesaid; that the impressions of the said etchings [21]