88 



VARIETIES. 



should not have been devoured, and that it should have been in 

 a perfect state ; as I believe the bird thus impales its prey that 

 it may devour it at leisure. Perhaps some of your corre- 

 spondents may be able to give some information on the subject. 

 I have found a Bomb tts impaled in the same manner. 



Should you consider the above worthy of a corner in your 

 Magazine, I shall feel happy in having communicated even so 

 trivial a fact from the great Book of Nature, which is always 

 open to those who are willing to read in it, and the minute 

 perusal of which must always be an inexhaustible source of 

 amusement and instruction. 



Wm. Longman. 



Hampsteud, IQth Juhj, 1832. 



8. Stephens v. Rennie and Orr, (Court of Chancery, Thurs- 

 day, \9th July, 1832). — Sir Edward Sugden applied, 

 exparte, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from 

 printing and publishing a work entitled, " A Conspectus 

 of the Butterflies and Moths to be found in Great Britain." 

 In support of the injunction, he read the afiidavit of the 

 plaintiff, which stated that he, the plaintifl^", had published, 

 and was still proceeding with the publication of a work of 

 a similar nature, entitled, "A Synopsis of the Indigenous 

 Insects of Great Britain," from which the defendants drew 

 the principal part of their publication. That it was a 

 piracy there could be no doubt, as the defendants confined 

 their descriptive powers to those insects which had been 

 already described in the volumes published by the plain- 

 tiff; and, when those failed them, they had nothing of their 

 own to fall back upon, but were at a dead stand. A single 

 glance at the two books would at once shew the propriety of 

 this injunction being granted. In one part, where the plaintiff 

 described an insect, by mistake, as with oculi nudi, the 

 defendant described the same insect exactly in the same 

 manner, copying the mistake, without any notice; but instead 

 of using the Latin words they gave it in English. In another 

 part, where a description of the insect, Syenna, had been, by 

 a mistake of the press, given under the name of Scoria, the 

 defendants still copied the mistake. The defendants, in some 

 places, admitted that they took extracts from the plaintiff's 

 work ; but that did not alter the case. 



