Stockdale against Onwhyn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1826 |
| Date | 27 January 1826 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 65
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 7 D. & R. 625; 4 L. J. K. B. O. S. 122; and at Nisi Prius, 2 Car. & P. 163.
5 B. & C. 174. STOCKDALE V. ONWHYN 65 stockdale against onwhyn. Friday, January 27tb, 1826. The first publisher of a libellous or immoral work cannot maintain an action against any person for publishing a pirated edition. [S. C. 7 D. & K. 625; 4 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 122; and at Nisi Prius, 2 Car. & P. 163.] Case, for publishing and exposing to sale, and selling, without the consent of the plaintiff, divers, to wit, 5000 copies of a certain work called the Memoirs of Harriette Wilson, copied from a book which the plaintiff had printed, and of which he was the first publisher. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Abbott C.J., at the Westminster sittings after last Michaelmas term, it appeared that the work in question professed to be a history of the amours of a courtezan, that some parts of it were libellous upon individuals, and other parts very licentious. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that such a work was not entitled to the protection of the law, and directed a nonsuit; and now Brougham moved for a rule nisi for a new trial. The doctrine that a publisher can have no property in such a work as that which the defendant is alleged to have pirated, rests entirely upon the dictum of Eyre C.J., in a case tried before him at Warwick. In Walcot v. [174] Walker (7 Ves. jun. 1), and Southey v. Sherwood (2 Mer. 435), Lord Eldon relied upon it, when he refused to grant an injunction to restrain the sale of copies of what he considered immoral works. The cases in equity cannot weigh much against the present claim, they leave the question of law quite where it was before ; for it is one thing to refuse the special protection of an injunction, and another to say that there can be no property in the book. The case tried before Eyre C.J. is not regularly reported, but an account of it is given by the counsel in Southey v. Sherwood; and it is plain that the dictum of Eyre C.J. was not well founded in law. Dr. Priestley brought an action against the hundred for damages sustained by him, in consequence of the riotous proceedings of a mob at Birmingham; part of the property alleged to have been destroyed consisted of unpublished manuscripts. On behalf of the hundred it was said, that the plaintiff was in the habit of publishing works injurious to the Government; but no evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v Tallis and Another
...that, by reason of the licentious character of the book, the publisher is without^the protection of the law-as in Stockdale v. Onwhyn (5 B. & C. 173, 7 D. & E. 625, 2 C. & P. 163), Poplett v.\0nwhyn (E. & M. 337), Hime v. Dale (11 East, 244, n., 2 Campb. 27, n.), Fores v. Johnes (4 Esp. N. ......
-
Greville against Chapman, Henry Lamb and Thomas Lamb
...an immoral or an illegal act." The publisher of a libellous work cannot maintain an action for piracy of his work; Stodcdale v. Unwhyn (5 B. & C, 173). [Lord Deiiman C.J. referred to Stockdale v. Tarte (4 A. & E. 1016).] There the jury seem to have been allowed to take the truth into their ......
-
Anonymous
...materials used in printing any work, unless he affixed his name to it, pursuant to the 39 G-. 3, c. 7, s. 27: so, in Stockdale v. Onwhyn (5 B. & C. 173),-that the first publisher of a libellous or immoral work could not [792] maintain an action against any person for publishing a pirated ed......
- Venus Adult Shops Pty Ltd v Fraserside Holdings Ltd