May 7, 1874. ] 



JOUBNAL OF HOBTICULTUKE AND COTTAGE QABDENEB. 



365 



that the defendant had made no less than 010 extracts there- 

 from. The defendant did not deny making the extracts, but on 

 the contrary pleaded that the time within which complaint 

 could be made of any piracy in respect of the first edition had 

 elapsed, and that consequently the plaintiff could have no relief 

 with regard to any portion of his works which appeared in the 

 first edition. Secondly, he contended that the plaintiff had 

 acquiesced in the publication of the extracts in the first edition ; 

 and in support of this contention it was stated that soon after 

 the issuing of the first edition a copy was forwarded to the 

 plaintiff, aud that considering the number of quotations which 

 it was admitted had been made from the plaintiff 's works, it 

 must be presumed that he was fully aware of the fact from the 

 merest cursory view possible of the work in question. Thirdly, 

 it was contended, although very faintly, that no piracy of the 

 plaintiff's works had been committed. 



The defendant through his Counsel stated that he waa per- 

 fectly willing to submit to an order restraining him from pub- 

 lishing anything in the second edition of his work which was 

 not already in the first — that is to say, any new matter then in- 

 troduced for the first time. This offer, however, was declined 

 on the part of the plaintiff. 



In reply to the defendant's contentions, the plaintiff sub- 

 mitted, that as soon as the discovery of the piracy took place 

 immediate steps were taken to assert his rights ; that there had 

 been no acquiescence on his part ; that although a copy of the 

 defendant's work had come into his possession some three years 

 ago, he had not looked through it, but had merely read one par- 

 ticular passage referring to a discussion which was then taking 

 place in the horticultural world with reference to the Pommier 

 de Paradis stock. 



The VicE-CnAxcELLOR, in deciding the case, said that the 

 plaintiff was not barred by lapse of time in claiming the reUef 

 he asked. Upon the second point as to the acquiescence, he 

 said that it appeared to him not necessary in the view he 

 took of it to say what was the true conclusion to be drawn, or 

 the true legal inference to be derived with reference to the 

 knowledge of the plaintiff at the time that the copy of the first 

 edition of the defendant's book was sent to him, for it was per- 

 fectly clear that the plaintiff was, at the time he received the 

 letter accompanying the book from the defendant, and which 

 was relied on as giving him knowledge of the contents of the 

 book, the undoubted legal owner of the copyright; it was his 

 property, and he had a right to say to the defendant, " That is 

 my property, and I don't choose to allow you to use it." He did 

 not, however, take any steps founded on that right untU the 

 filing of this bill iu 1871), and he thought it might be assumed 

 in favour of the defendant, that the plaintiff had knowledge of 

 the defendant's continuing to publish and sell the first edition 

 from the time when the copy was sent to him. He published it 

 ior two years afterwards, and then it was that the defendant 

 determined to publish a new and very much enlarged edition of 

 his work, and which, as it ultimately turned out, contained 

 many further extracts from the plaintiff's works. With re- 

 ference to the question whether the non-taking proceedings on 

 the part of the plaintiff in respect of the matters contained iu 

 the first edition for so long a time was or was not a bar to the 

 plaintiff's rights in a Court of Equity, he considered that it did 

 not amount to what must be made out by the defendant in order 

 to succeed — namely, that such a state of circumstances had 

 arisen that the Court was satisfied the conduct of the plaintiff 

 had led the defendant to incur- expense and labour with regard 

 to the preparation of the new edition which rendered it un- 

 just and inequitable that he should now be restrained. The 

 fact of the plaintiff having inserted an advertisement in one of 

 his periodicals announcing the preparation of the new edition 

 of the defendant's work did not in his opinion amount to that 

 description of acquiescence in the defendant's dealings with the 

 Bubject which must be taken to deprive the plaintiff of the right 

 to the interference of the Court. He might well say, " I am 

 aware you have been going on selling a book containing portions 

 ■of my property for a certain time, but I now say that from this 

 time forth I will not allow you to continue doing so. I have had 

 no reason for supposing that you were laying-out money all this 

 time in connection with this intended fresh publication. You 

 may have been selling copies of your book which may have been 

 printed and in your warehouse long before I knew anything 

 about it. You did not tell me that you were making an ex- 

 penditure and outlay iu reference to your work, and it ought 

 not to be assumed that I knew you were going on spending 

 money on the faith of my not taking proceedings against you. 

 It is my property ; you have never come to me to ask me to give 

 you that property in any proper or regular way, and I have a 

 right to enforce my claims in respect of that property in a Court 

 of Equity." It being the plaintiff's property, and the Court 

 being bound to take notice of a legal right, and to determine 

 ■whether the plaintiff had or had not that legal right, was the 

 Court to withhold the remedy by injunction ? He thought not. 

 Then, with regard to the defendant's contention that the ex- 

 tracts mode from the plaintiff's work in the £rst edition of the 



defendant's book were so numerous that it was impossible for 

 the plaintiff not to have discovered the piracy, he thought that 

 that contention was hardly available under the circumstances of 

 the case with regard to acquiescence ; but when the question of 

 piracy came to be considered, it was certainly a very cogent and 

 convincing argument the other way. Therefore, he must decide 

 both points against the defendant. He thought the defendant 

 had been content iu a great number of instances to take the 

 plaintiff's description of the fruits, and not go to any other 

 source of information, and that it was clear to his mind that the 

 defendant did not go to that source to which the plaintiff him- 

 self had gone for the purpose of arriving at a true conclusion — 

 namely, taking specimens of the fraits themselves and writing 

 his own descriptions. To his mind it was as clear a case of 

 copying as he had ever seen. Then with regard to the con- 

 tention that the same fruit could only be described iu the same 

 words, he thought that the English language must be very poor 

 indeed if it did not allow of different expressions being used iu 

 this respect. Upon the whole of the case he thought the de- 

 fendant had entirely failed in every one of his contentions, 

 and that consequently the plaintiff was entitled to the relief he 

 asked — namely, an injunction restraining the defendant from 

 Belling and pubUshing the matter complained of, together with 

 the costs of the suit. 



NOTES AND GLEANINGS. 



There is a specimen of Cvcas revoluta here (Nash Court, 

 near Faversham, Kent), which has produced thirty-six fronds 

 this spring. In former years nineteen fronds were the most. 

 Many gardeners who have seen this specimen think that thirty- 

 six fronds to be produced at one time is a little out of the 

 common. The plant is about fifteen years old; spread of old 

 fronds, 7J feet. The new fronds are stronger, and will pro- 

 bably have a spread of 8^ feet. Has any one of your readers 

 seen or heard of a Cycas with a like number ? — C. M. McCrow. 



The flor.u, decorations at the Mansion House ball 



in honour of the Dake aud Duchess of Edinburgh on the 

 29th of last month, were of a very handsome and extensive 

 character, and many new plants never before used in any 

 previous decoration were displayed iu the Eoyal supper aud 

 reception rooms. Amongst these were the beautiful and grace- 

 ful Aralia Veitchii, Cocos Weddeliana, JIaranta Makoyana, 

 Pandanus Veitchii, and many rare Palms, Orchids, &c. Up- 

 wards of two tons of Ivy were used In draping the pictures, 

 mirrors, walls, Ac, of the various rooms and haUs ; and amongst 

 the cut flowers upwards of two thousand blooms of Mareohal 

 Niel Rose formed a magnificent display, together with large 

 quantities of Stephanotis, Gardenias, itc. They were all sup- 

 phed and arranged by Mr. .lohn WUls, Royal Exotic Nursery, 

 Sussex Place, Old Brompton. 



The Sale of H. L. Micholls, Esq.'s Collection of 



Plants took place at his residence, Southgate House, South- 

 gate, Middlesex, on the 28th and 23th of April. Mr. J. C. 

 Stevens was the auctioneer. There were G3'J lots, and they 

 realised £1644 17s. Of the Azaleas Stella (5 feet by 4 feet), 

 was knocked down for .£1U 10s. ; Chelsoni (5 feet by 4i feet), 

 £11 : of the Heaths, Erica Cavendishii (4 feet by 4 feet), for 

 £'J; E. Shanoni (4 feet by 8 feet), £0 10s.: of miscellaneous 

 plants, Aphelexis macrantha purpurea (5 feet by 8 feet), 

 £11 lis.; Hedaroma tulipiferum (4J feet by 4 feet), £1G ; 

 Dasylirion acrotrichum, £1'2 12s. ; Gleichenia rupestris (7 feet 

 by ') feet), £19 19s. ; Cocos Weddeliana (8 feet by 7 feet), £29 ; 

 aud, highest of the high, " Anthurium Scherzerianum, one of 

 the original plants, and the finest specimen with the highest- 

 coloured flowers in existence," £66. 



A NOVEL SUBJECT FOR THE SPRING GARDEN. 



Of the value of the Golden Feather Pyrethrum for playing 

 an imposing and effective part in the matter of spring or 

 summer bedding, it would be a work of supererogation to say 

 even a word. 



Therefore we venture to bring under notice a novel subject, 

 which appears to us to be well calculated, if not to rival, at 

 least to form a companion plant for the Pyrethrum, and play 

 a similar part in the flower ground, with little less but some- 

 what varied effects. The subject whose claims to notice we 

 now put forward is a homely one, but not the less to be appre- 

 ciated, we hope, on that account. Like the Golden Pyrethrum, 

 it can boast no exotic or alien parentage. Our plant is the 

 golden-leaved variety of the common purple Lamium, or, as it 

 is known botanically, Lamium purpnreum var. aureum. In 

 this we haye a low-growing, perfectly hardy plant, easily pro- 



