418 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 



April 29th, May 3rd, 25tli, &c., and the Antliropologkal Review, of 

 July, 1869. To all appearance, the one confirmed the other; and it 

 will scarcely be assumed by impartial readers that we were producing a 

 report " wholly unworthy of reliance," when sustained by an agreement 

 between journals so dissimilar in sympathies and aims. But if we had 

 had any doubts before as to the employment of reasonable diligence in 

 informing ourselves on the subject in question, they would be removed 

 by the pamphlet of Dr. Nicholas ; for we are there warned that " the 

 statements in the London morning papers, in reference to this case, 

 are by no means to be relied upon ; " and no more reliable sources of 

 information are named by him. His position in this respect was indeed 

 surpassingly grievous. Even his own counsel failed him, if they did 

 not positively play into the hands of his opponents; for, as he says, 

 " My counsel, to my utter astonishment, withheld all the evidence as to 

 common sources which I had prepared; believing, as it seems, that the 

 case was safe enough without it; and made silly admissions and gratui- 

 tous statements, as if on purpose to strengthen the other side." Dr. 

 JNicholas accordingly took up his own case in the Court of Appeal ; 

 and, in spite of the proverbial fate of the client who trusts to such 

 counsel, he is able to report : " Though no lawyer, I pleaded my own 

 cause on appeal, and had no diflB.culty in overthrowing the adverse 

 decision." 



But all this belongs to a subsequent date. When we wrote, the 

 " admissions and gratuitous statements " of Dr. Nicholas's own counsel 

 (on his classical acquirements, for example,) were the sole record we 

 could appeal to; and could scarcely be suspected, by us at least, of being 

 set forth "on purpose to strengthen the other side.'' The author's 

 own pamphlet was not yet written ; only the ordinary and usually 

 reliable channels of news were accessible to us; and if neither the daily 

 press, nor literary or scientific periodicals, were to be trusted in this 

 peculiar case, our final resort could only be to the judgment of the 

 Vice-Chancellor. 



As, however, the AntJiropological Review is the organ of a Society, 

 of which the plaintiff in the original suit is a vice-president. Dr. 

 Nicholas may have some ground for his belief that its report is biased, 

 at any rate in the selection of some of those unfortunate admissions 

 and gratuitous statements, which naturally carried all the more weight 

 till they were met by counter evidence in the subsequent appeal, owing 

 to their actually forming part of the defendant's own case, as set forth 



