Attorney General v Strange and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 293
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. on appeal, 1 H. & Tw. 1; 47 E. R. 1302; 1 Mac. & G. 25; 41 E. R. 1171 (with note), to which add Merryweather v. Moore [1892], 2 Ch. 522; Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch. 236; Robb v. Green [1895], 2 Q. B. 16, 319.
[652] prince albert v. strange and others. attorney-general v. strange and others. Oct. 20, Nov. 6, Dee. 13, 14, 1848; Jan. 12, June 1, 2 1849. [S. C. on appeal, 1 H. & Tw. 1; 47 E. E. 1302; 1 Mac. & Gr. 25; 41 E. R 1171 (with note), to which add Merryweather v. Moore [1892], 2 Ch. 522; Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch. 236; Robb v.'Green [1895], 2 Q. B. 16, 319.] Where a Workman, intrusted with copperplates for the purposfe of'taking impressions for the Plaintiff of etchings made by the latter, and not intended for publication, took impressions for himself, in violation of the trust, and sold the impressions to the Defendant, who'published a catalogue of them, accompanied by remarks of his own : Held, that the Plaintiff was entitled at the hearing to a perpetual injunction to restrain the publication of the catalogue, and to a decree ordering the impres sions to be destroyed; and that the Defendant was not entitled to a preliminary trial of his title at law. " Upon a previous interlocutory application for an injunction the evidence only made out a case of suspicion that a breach of confidence had been committed. On the Defendant putting in his answer, denying notice of any such breach of confidence, but not fully or. satisfactorily accounting for his possession of the etchings, and moving to dissolve the injunction: Held, that there was sufficient ground for suspicion that there were equitable as well as legal grounds for interference, to make it right to continue the injunction to the hearing (on proper undertakings), without putting the Plaintiff to establish a title at law. Semble, that," independently of the breach of trust, the legal right of the Plaintiff to preserve the privacy of his unpublished works was so clearly infringed by the publication of the catalogue as to entitle him to have it protected by injunction, without obtaining the decision of a Court of law in its favour; and that the distribution of a few copies of the etchings to private friends did not prejudice this right. When a bill has been dismissed against one Defendant, his name is properly omitted in the title of the cause, at the head of depositions taken after such dismissal. The original bill in the former of the above suits was exhibited by the Prince Albert, as Plaintiff, against William Strange, a publisher in Paternoster Row, and the Attorney-General, as Defendants. The original bill stated that Her Majesty and the Plaintiff had occasionally, for their amusement, made drawings and etchings, being principally subjects of private and domestic interest to themselves, and of which etchings they had made impressions for their own use, and not for publication. For greater privacy, such impressions had been, for part, made by means of a private press kept for that purpose, and the plates themselves had been ordinarily kept by Her Majesty under lock; and the impressions had been placed in some of the private apartments of Her Majesty at Windsor, and in such private apartments only. That the Defendant, William Strange, or his confederates, had in some manner obtained some of such impressions, which had been surreptitiously taken from some of such plates, and had thereby 294 PRINCE ALBERT V. STRANGE 2 DE G. & SM. 653. been enabled to form, and had formed, a gallery or collection of such etchings, of which he intended to make a public exhibition, without the permission of Her Majesty and the Plaintiff, or either [653] of them, and against their will; and that the Defendant, William Strange, who was a printer and publisher, carrying on business at No. 21 Paternoster Eow, London, had printed and published a work, of which the title-page or cover bore the following title :- "A Descriptive Catalogue of the Royal Victoria and Albert Gallery of Etchings," and contained the following notice :- " London.- . . . Every purchaser of this Catalogue will be presented (by permission) with a fac-simile of the autograph of either Her Majesty or of the Prince Consort, engraved from the original, the selection being left to the purchaser. "Price Sixpence." The preface contained the following passage :- " This Royal and most interesting collection is now submitted to the inspection of the public, under the firm persuasion and in the full confidence that Her Majesty's loyal and affectionate subjects will highly admire and duly appreciate the eminent artistic talent and acquirements of both Her Majesty and her illustrious Consort His Royal Highness Prince Albert. " ' You must not be the grave of your deserving : England must know The value of her own. 'Twere a concealment Worse than a theft, no less than a traducement, To hide your doings.'-shakespeare." The bill stated that the work was published without the consent and against the will of the Plaintiff and the Queen, and it contained other statements to the same effect as those of the affidavit of the Plaintiff, mentioned below. The prayer was that the Defendant might be ordered to deliver up to the Plaintiff all impressions and copies of the several etchings respectively made by the Plaintiff, and [654] that the Defendant and his servants, agents and workmen, might in the meantime be restrained by injunction from exhibiting the gallery or collection of etchings, or any such etchings; and from making or permitting to be made any engravings or copies of the same or any 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 from selling or in any manner publishing; and from printing the descriptive catalogue, or any such work being or purporting to be a catalogue of the etchings ; and that all the copies of the catalogue in the possession or power of the Defendant might be given up to be destroyed. On the 20th of October 1848 a motion was made exparte for an injunction in the terms of the prayer of the bill. In support of the motion was read an affidavit of the Plaintiff, stating that he had looked through the book then produced and shewn to him, marked A, intitled " A Descriptive Catalogue of the Royal Victoria and Albert Gallery of Etchings;" and that there were such etchings made by Her Majesty and himself respectively as therein mentioned; and that the same were so made for the private use of the Queen and himself, and not for publication; and that the Queen and himself had a private press from which they occasionally printed impressions of the etchings; and that the plates were kept locked up by them in order to prevent the same becoming public, but that copies of the impressions were placed and left in several of the private apartments of the Queen at Windsor, and in such private apartments only; and that amongst such etchings were private portraits of the Plaintiff, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and other members of the Royal Family and personal friends of Her Majesty, and that many of them were drawn by her from life, and afterwards etched by Her Majesty and the Prince; and amongst such etchings were portraits of their favourite dogs taken from life, and etchings from old and rare engravings in the pos-[655]-session of the Queen ; and that the impressions of the said etchings were intended to be for the private use of the Queen and the Prince only; 2 DE G. & SM. 656. PRINCE ALBERT V. STRANGE 295 and that although copies of some of such etchings had been given occasionally (and very rarely) to some of their personal friends, one to one friend and one to another, yet the deponent (speaking positively for himself, and, to the best of his belief, for the Queen) said that no such collection as that advertised for exhibition as aforesaid was ever given away by them or either of them, or by their or either of their permission ; and that the deponent believed, and had no doubt, that no such collection could have been formed except of impressions surreptitiously and improperly obtained; and that the same had been so formed; and that he believed that the Defendant, William Strange, or his confederate or confederates, the person or persons really in possession of the collection advertised for exhibition, must have obtained and did obtain the same from some person or persons surreptitiously; and that, by whatever means the same were obtained, the exhibition of the said etchings or of any of them was without the sanction and against the wishes of the Queen and himself; and that such exhibition would be in the highest degree offensive to them; and that he believed that such catalogue, and the descriptive and other remarks therein contained, could not have been compiled or made except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings so surreptitiously obtained as aforesaid; and that the deponent's first knowledge of the existence of such catalogue was on the llth day of October instant, when the same was produced to him by George Edward Anson, Esq., as a parcel which had been left at the Palace, directed to the Queen, and opened by Mr. Anson, who thereby for the first time learned that such a collection of etchings had been formed, and first learned that it was intended to submit them to public exhibition; and that the deponent believed that it was on the same occasion, and at the same time, that the Queen [656] first became aware of the existence of such catalogue, and first learned that such a collection had been formed, and first learned that it was intended to submit them to public exhibition; and that the deponent thereupon immediately desired the said George Edward Anson to write to Mr. Edward White, the private solicitor of Her Majesty, on the subject. Upon this affidavit, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OBG Ltd. et al. v. Allan et al., (2007) 369 N.R. 66 (HL)
...Ltd. et al., [1990] 1 A.C. 109; 99 N.R. 241 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 272, 307]. Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. & Sm. 652; 64 E.R. 293, refd to. [para. 274]. Argyle (Duchess) v. Argyle (Duke), [1967] Ch. 302, refd to. [para. 274]. Fraser v. Evans, [1969] 1 Q.B. 349, refd to. [p......
-
EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd and Others v Eircom Ltd
...COPYRIGHT & RELATED RIGHTS ACT 2000 S40(4) SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRL) ACT 1877 PRINCE ALBERT v STRANGE & ORS 1849 2 DE G & SM 652 64 ER 293 DOUGLAS v HELLO! LTD (NO 1) 2001 QB 967 2001 2 WLR 992 2001 2 AER 289 COPYRIGHT & RELATED RIGHTS ACT 2000 S140 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 INT......
-
Sony Music Entertainment Ireland Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd
...20 November 2015). Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd. v. Cody [1998] 4 I.R. 504; [1998] 2 I.L.R.M. 21. Prince Albert v. Strange (1849) 64 E.R. 293, 2 De. G. & Sm. 652. Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España SAU (Case C-275/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-271; [2008] 2 ......
-
Costa v Imperial London Hotels Ltd
... ... to intercept her voice messages and the voice messages of others working for Mr Clifford, (b) the nature of the interception he was ... 11 The following arguments, which appear to be of some general significance, were relied on in this court by Mr Millar QC, who appeared ... that it was precious close to copyright) in Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 2 De G & Sm 652 , and what was undoubtedly a personal context in ... Further, following Lord Goff's authoritative observations in Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 , 281, it is ... ...
-
Trade Secrets' Under New Zealand Law
...can fail at the first hurdle if the information allegedly misused does not have the necessary 36 Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 2 De G & Sm 652; (Knight Bruce V-C); 1 Mac & G 25 (Lord Cottenham LC). For an in-depth look at the early history see Tanya Frances Aplin and Francis Gurry Gurry on......
-
MILKY WAY AND ANDROMEDA: PRIVACY, CONFIDENTIALITY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
...concerned personal information of a private nature. This includes the old case of Prince Albert v Strange(1849) 2 De G & Sm 652; 64 ER 293 (information set out visually in etchings concerning private family scenes). Other examples are Lennon v News Group Newspapers Ltd[1978] FSR 573 (marita......
-
Reconsidering Disgorgement for Wrongs
...exists independently of any property whichmight be subjected to the relationship.106 eg Prince Albert vStrange (1849) 2 DeGex & Sm 652, 64 ER 293; Argyll vArgyll [1967] 1 Ch 302,332 per Ungoed-Thomas J. In Seager vCopydex Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 923, 931 per Lord Denning, thejurisdiction was seen ......