THK LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 425 



" Then, can it be said that the defendant has done exactly the same thing ? Of 

 course I cannot assume that the defendant does not know Latin. . . . He has 

 read to us several passages in Latin, sensibly and intelligibly, and in a manner 

 which appeared to me to show that he understood what he was reading. I am 

 bound, therefore, to say that he is acquainted with Latin ; and if acquainted with 

 Latin, I cannot say that he could not translate the word ruiilafae 'reddened,' 

 just as the plaintiff had. Besides that, he evidently seems to be well acquainted 

 •with German, and he says he has looked at the German translation of Livy, and 

 he finds exactly the same translation of the word rutilatae as the plaintiff's, viz.. 

 'reddened ; ' showing, therefore, that from his own resources he might very well 

 have been led to that. 



" Therefore, I think the Vice-Chancellor has laid a great deal too much stress 

 on these similarities, which are numerous, but which are well and properly 

 accounted for. 



"I come next to the part of the case which relates to the two passages of the 

 defendant's book which have been enjoined by the Yice-Chancellor. The first 

 passage is that with reference to Gildas, and with regard to Gildas the case is 

 reasonably clear to my mind. ... It must be taken as admitted ground, that 

 on the one hand the defendant used the plaintiff's book in writing his observa- 

 tions on Gildas; and on the other, knowing that the subject is treated of in the 

 Monumenta Historica Brilannica, he went to that work, which he says they went 

 to in common. . . . 



" Then, however, says the plaintiff, ' My observations on the character of 

 Gildas, and his prejudiced and exaggerated views, are wholly taken by you.' 

 Upon this part of the case, again, I confess I am wholly with the defendant. I 

 think the defendant has taken a wholly different view from that of the plaintiff. 

 , . ' . He writes a line of argument which cannot fairly be designated the same 

 as that of the plaintiff, but must be taken to be a line of argument of his own. . . . 



" Where it seems to me, I confess, the Vice-Chancellor has failed to do justice 

 to the defendant, is in this respect : he lays great weight on the common division 

 of the subject, which I have already gone into, . . . He lays great stress on 

 this and that author being cited. ... 'I cite Tacitus; so do you. I cite 

 Licebonius ; so do you,' (fee. And then the Vice-Chancellor winds up by asking, 

 'If you did not get them from the plaintiff, where did you get them from?' I 

 think the answer to that question is, if there be a common source, that he got 

 them from that common source. 



" But I think the Vice-Chancellor had great reason to entertain a very strong 

 feeling of distrust. There is the Answer, which undoubtedly states the case in a 

 manner which, if not intended to mislead, was calculated in the highest degree 

 to do so. ... I think the passage in the answer [improperly drawn by counsel, 

 and against his instructions, stating that the MSS. produced were in an unaltered 

 state, although it was also expressly allowed that the subsection on Gildas had 

 been written into the text, from being in the form of a note, since the plaintiff's 

 book had been published ;] I have referred to does justify us in saying that we 

 ougbt not to give the defendant his costs, because it seems to me that that pas- 

 sage has occasioned a great deal of the litigation, and that if the whole matter 



