PIRACY. 
[Extract from the Times Newspaper of Nov. 8, 1834.] 
COURT OF CHANCERY, FRIDAY, NOV. 7, 1834. 
RIDGWAY v. HENDERSON. 
_ Mr. Kindersley moved for an injunction to restrain the defendant from conti- 
nuing the publication of two numbers of a work in which it was alleged there 
were piracies from the work of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had for some time past 
published a work, entitled the “ Botanical Register,” which appeared monthly. 
It contained plates, eight in each number, representing flowers and plants, and 
descriptions of those plates. The defendant also published a periodical work on 
botany, similar in some respects to the plaintiff's work, and he had copied in 
_ two of his numbers two plates, one of which recently appeared in the plaintiff's 
Work, and the other in a number published by the plaintiff some years ago. 
The plaintiff's and the defendant's works were handed up to the Lord Chancellor, 
who compared the plates pointed out, and was satisfied that the one was copied 
from the other. The letter-press was then referred to, and there also.a great 
similarity was apparent. It was pointed out by the counsel, that where in the 
original work a reference had been made to a preceding number, in the words 
“supra, vol. 2,” the copier had mistaken the word supra for the name of some 
author, and had so printed it. 
The Lord Chancellor said these were the pitfalls into which pirates often fell. 
There was a curious instance of a similar mistake committed in a piracy upon Dr. 
Johnson's Dictionary. The Doctor stated the word ** curmudgeon” to be derived 
from the French, ceur méchant, and added as his authority for this derivation 
the words “unknown correspondent.” The copier (Dr. Ash) mistook these last 
words, and gave the word curmudgeon as derived from the French ceur, unknown, 
méchant, correspondent. In this case his Lordship said there was enough shewn 
‚ to warrant the injunction, which he ordered accordingly. 
We beg to call attention to the foregoing extract. It 
may not be generally known to the public, although it has 
long been notorious to those who are conversant with the 
publishing business, that there exists in this metropolis, 
on tle part of certain writers and booksellers, a system of 
gross literary piracy ; that no sooner does valuable original 
matter, which has been obtained at great expense by the 
fair dealer, make its appearance, than it is snatched up and 
republished verbatim by certain unprincipled persons; in 
particular, that there are books called cheap periodicals, 
Which are entirely maintained by the plunder of original 
VOL. XX. L 
‘ 
