Ann Paxton Gee, Plaintiff, and William Pritchard and William Anderson, Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1818 |
| Date | 28 July 1818 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 36 E.R. 670
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Springhead Spinning Company v. Riley, 1868, L. R. 6 Eq. 558; Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 621; Prudential Assurance Company v. Knott, 1875, L. R. 10 Ch. 145. See also, with note, Pope v. Curl, 1741, 2 Atk. 342.
670 GEE t'. PRITCHARD 2 SWANS. 408. ann- paxton (}ee, Plaintiff, and william pkitchard and william anderson, Defendants. July 17, 28, [1818]. [See Springhead Spinning Company v. Riley, 1808, L. R. 6 Eq. 558 ; Mulkern v. Ward, 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 02 1 ; 'Prudential Assurance Company v. Knott, 1875, L R. 10 Gli. 145. See also, with note. Pope v. Curl, 1741, 2 Atk. 342.] Letters written by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, having been returned by him, with a declaration that ho did not consider himself entitled to retain them, the publication of copies taken before the return without the knowledge of the Pkiintiff, was restrained by injunction, though represented by the Defendant as necessary for the vindication of his character. The jurisdiction to restrain the publication of letters is founded on a right of property in the writer. The bill stated, that William Ge.e,, late of Beddington Park, in the county of Surrey, deceased, the late husband of the Plaintiff, for many years before, and at the time of, his death, resided in the mansion of Beddington Park ; that the Plaintiff had not any issue [403] by William Gee, and after their marriage William Gee informed the Plaintiff, that there was a boy whom he maintained, and intended to educate and bring up, arid that he was desirous that the boy should reside at Beddington during the vacations from school, and that he intended to educate him and procure him a living in the church, or to place him in some other respectable situation in life ; that the Plaintiff having great affection for her husband, and being desirous to comply with his wish in that respect, consented to receive the boy, whose name was William Pritchard (the Defendant, the Rev. William Pritchard), and he was accordingly brought to the house at Beddington, and spent his vacations there ; that Pritchard, after that time, arid while he remained at school, was brought to Beddington, as his home during the vacations, or times of recess from school, and after he quitted school, and was a student at the University of Cambridge, and until his marriage hi the year 1810, he was permitted by "William Gee and the Plaintiff, to return to and reside at Beddintjton as his home ; that William Gee, by having Pritchard frequently at his house on such occasions, had, and showed great fondness for him, until some time before his death, and the Plaintiff also entertained a good opinion of Pritchard, and had great regard for him, which she often expressed to him by letters and otherwise, and she at all times paid him great attention, and shewed him great kindness. The bill further stated, that William Gee died in July 1815, having first, by his will, divided his property between the Plaintiff and Pritchard, and made such provision for Pritchard therein as he thought proper and just; that, for many years during the time the Plaintiff was so acquainted with Pritchard, she was in the habit of writing letters to, and receiving letters from him, on various family and other subjects, some of them of a [404] private and confidential nature, and some as the Plaintiff believes, relating to his morals and conduct in life, and containing advice to him ; that for some time past the Plaintiff had had great reason to be displeased and dissatisfied with Pritchard and his conduct, and in consequence thereof they had ceased to be on terms of friendship ; and Pritchard, from resentment, as the Plaintiff believed, had threatened and intended to print and publish copies of the letters which were so written by the Plaintiff to him, or extracts therefrom; and wrote a letter to the Plaintiff, dated the 14th of May 1818, containing the following passage :-" My life, as far back as memory serves, more particularly from my first residence at Beddington, together with the grounds I had for being differently situated, viz. your professions contained in your letters, will be published in the middle of June." The bill charged that Pritchard was proceeding to print and publish, or cause to be printed and published, the letters of the Plaintiff, or true copies or copy thereof, and extracts therefrom, and that he and the Defendant Anderson had caused public notice thereof to be given, by advertisement in the newspapers, and otherwise, arid particularly in a newspaper called The Morning Post, on Friday the 9th of July, in the words following : " In the press, and speedily will be published, by William Anderson,bookseller, Piccadilly,' The Adopted Son, or, Twenty Years at Beddington,' containing Memoirs of a Clergyman, written by himself, and interspersed with interesting correspondence " ; and that Anderson was printing and about to publish the same, or some work in which the letters, or copies thereof, or extracts therefrom, were introduced. 2SWAKS. 4(tf. REE V. PRITOHARD f 71 The bill also charged, that the Plaintiff never consent-[405]-e(l or agreed that the letters, or any of them, or any extracts or extract therefrom, should be published ; and, in answer to an alleged pretence of the Defendant Pritchard, that the letters were his private property, and that he was entitled to print and publish them, or to make such use of them as he might think proper, charged, that the letters were wholly written and composed by the Plaintiff, and were not the property of Pritchard, but of the Plaintiff, and that Pritchard had not even a joint, or partial, or any property whatever therein, and that Pritcttard, if he ever had any interest in the letters, had parted with the same, for that he some time since sent to the Plaintiff a parcel of letters and papers, accompanied by a letter from him, stating, that the parcel contained the original letters which the Plaintiff had so written to him (the parcel of letters being then in the Plaintiff's possession) ; but the Plaintiff charged, that Pritchard before he sent to the Plaintiff the parcel of original letters, and without the consent of the Plaintiff, took, or caused to be taken, a copy thereof, from which copy so taken he intended to print and publish copies or extracts. The bill further charged, that the Defendants were, or were to be, jointly interested in the profits, if any, which should be made or produced by the sale of the publication, or that Anderson had, or was to have, some joint interest or concern with Pritchard in the publishing and sale of the letters or work ; that the publication of the letters, by the Defendant, was a breach of private confidence, or violation of the right and interest of the Plaintiff therein, and was intended to wound her feelings, and could have no other effect. The bill prayed, that the Defendants might be respectively restrained by injunction from printing or publishing the original letters, or any copies or copy of the original letters, so written by the Plaintiff, or any ex-[406]-tracts or extract therefrom, and might be decreed to deliver up to the Plaintiff, or to destroy, the original copy of the letters so taken or made by the Defendant Pritchard, and all printed and other copies thereof, or of any extracts therefrom, which they might respectively have in their possession or power. The allegations of the bill being verified by affidavit, a motion was made for an injunction, which the Lord Chancellor, after inquiring for an instance of an injunction issued against the person to whom the letters were addressed, granted on the authority of Thompson v. Stanhope (Amb. 737). " It was therefore prayed, that the Defendants may be respectively restrained, by the order or injunction of this Court, from printing or publishing the said original letters, or copies or copy of the original letters written by the Plaintiff, or extracts or extract ; which, upon hearing, &c., is ordered accordingly, until the Defendants shall appear to, and fully answer, the Plaintiff's bill, or this Court make other order to the contrary." Reg. Lib. A. 1817, fol. 1819. July 28. On this day a motion was made, on behalf of the Defendant, to dissolve the injunction. The affidavit of the Defendant, in support of the motion, stated, that he was the natural son of William Gee, the late husband of the Plaintiff, and that about nineteen years ago, and when he was of the age of eleven years, he was, with the consent of the Plaintiff, and with her knowledge of the relationship between himself and Mr. [407] &eei taken into Mr. Gee's house, and from that time till Mr. Gee's decease, was uniformly treated by him as his son, and was placed by him, and at his expense, under the tuition of a clergyman, who lived a few miles from Beddington Park, and during his vacations he went to, and resided at Beddington Park, as his proper home ; that in the year 1806 he was sent by Mr. Gee to St. John's College, Cambridge, where he was, by Mr. Gee's direction, entered at first as a pensioner, and afterwards as a fellow commoner ; and that during the whole time, from the period at which he was so received into Mr. Gee's house, until the time of his death, he was uniformly treated by Mr. Gee as his son, and with the greatest kindness arid indulgence, and was introduced by him into the society in which Mr. Gee lived, which was of the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
...and Proceedings of the Superior Courts of Common Law, (1831) at 18; emphasis in original. 289Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Sw 402 at 413 [ 36 ER 670 at 674]. The other well-known cases came after 1831: Martin v Wright (1833) 6 Sim 297 at 299 [ 58 ER 605 at 606]; Clark v Freeman (1848) 11 Beav 1......
-
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal
...more than what Lord Eldon LC famously intervened to observe in the course of the argument in Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Swans 402 at p.414; 36 ER 670 at p.674, namely[,] that doctrines ought to lay down “fixed principles” while “taking care that they are to be applied according to the circums......
-
Ume More, Fabian Pok, Levi Tilto, Wandi Oscar Yamula [Yamuna], Paul Piru, Powes Parkop and Members of the Student Representative Council and all those Students now enrolled at the University of Papua New Guinea who have National Scholarships other than Medical Students v The University of Papua New Guinea[1985] PNGLR 401
...1 Ch 121. Attorney-General (Qld) (Ex rel Kerr) v T (1983) 57 ALJR 285. Blay v Pollard and Morris [1930] 1 KB 628. Gee v Pritchard (1818) 2 Swans 402; 36 ER 670. Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435; [1977] 3 All ER 70. Iambakey Okuk v Gerald Fallscheer [1980] PNGLR 274. Kent......
-
Leung Kwok Hung And Others v Hksar
...finds in The Table Talk of John Selden (1927, ed. Sir Frederick Pollock) at p.43) was answered by Lord Eldon LC in Gee v. Pritchard (1818) 2 Swans. 402; 36 ER 670. There the Lord Chancellor spoke (at p.414; p.674) of “laying down fixed principles, but taking care that they are to be applied......
-
Table of cases
...250, 251, 252 GEA Refrigeration Canada Inc v Chang, 2020 BCCA 361 ................................ 102 Gee v Pritchard (1818), 2 Swan 402, 36 ER 670 (Ch) ............................................ 3 Geil Style Enterprises Ltd v Corp of the Township of North Dumfries, 2022 ONSC 1636 ............
-
Table of Cases
...213 GEA Group AG v. Ventra Group Co., 2009 ONCA 619 ............................. 168, 169 Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swan. 402, 36 E.R. 670 (Ch.)........................................ 3 General Mills Canada Ltd. v. Maple Leaf Mills Ltd. (1980), 52 C.P.R. (2d) 218 (Ont. H.C.J.) ................
-
The Jurisdiction of Equity
...as those of the common law”: see Davis v Duke of Marlborough (1819), 2 Swan 108, 36 ER 555 at 569 (Ch); Gee v Pritchard (1818), 2 Swan 402, 36 ER 670 at 674 (Ch). THE L AW OF EQUITABLE REMEDIES 4 been incurred to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which is A FRIENDLY SUIT, and which is ......
-
The Jurisdiction of Equity
...the common law”: see Davis v. Duke of Marlborough (1819), 2 Swan. 108, 36 E.R. 555 at 569 (Ch.); and Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swan. 402, 36 E.R. 670 at 674 (Ch.). The L aw of equiTabLe Remedies 4 B. THE RECEPTION OF EQUITY INTO CANADA The introduction of equity jurisdiction into Canada va......