426 THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT. 



had been ^ated in the answer in a straightforward manner, and clearly and afe 

 once, as it has been subsequently stated [and had from the first been stated, as 

 far as the defendant was concerned], the plaintiff might possibly have stopped 

 the suit altogether. ... I am of opinion the bill should have been dismissed, 

 but, under the circumstances I have referred to, dismissed without costs." 



LORD JUSTICE GIFPARD. 

 " I have only a few general observations to add to the judgment the Lord 

 Chancellor has just delivered. Beyond all doubt, in this case the plaintiff under- 

 took a more formidable task than was ever undertaken before in any copyright 

 case. . . . The task undertaken by the plaintiff was impossible, unless he could 

 show that there were passages either actually copied, or copied with mere color- 

 able alteration. It will not do to show merely one or two passages, but some 

 material part of the book. . . , Then, upon referring to MSS. A, B, C and D, 

 it is beyond all doubt that great labour and a large amount of time must have 

 been employed, if the mere labour of writing those MSS. and nothing else is 

 considered. But I am satisfied that the defendant bestowed a great deal of labour 

 and time on these MSS. ... I am also satisfied of this — which, when you are 

 dealing with a question of copyright with reference to books such as this, is of 

 great importance, — that the book of the defendant is his own composition ; that, 

 wherever he got the materials from, they were worked up by him into his own 

 language. . . . Then that brings me to the conclusion that there has been 

 really no such use made by the defendant of the plaintiff's book, as entitles the 

 plaintiff to an injunction. ... As I said before, when we have a book which 

 is really the composition of the defendant, written in his own language, and 

 bearing in mind the circumstances attending the writing of these two books, it 

 will be seen that the plaintiff undertook a task which was morally impossible." 



The explanatory commeats of Dr. Nicholas, inserted within brackets 

 in the preceding extracts, we have allowed to stand, as furnished by 

 himself, so as to do him all justice in setting forth his own case. But 

 as he has characterised our previous notice as founded on an " ex 'parte 

 statement of facts," it could not surprise us if Mr. Pike should retort 

 by calling this "an ex parte abstract of judgments;" for we find, on 

 referring to the Times of November 25th, that the Lord Chancellor is 

 reported as stating, after disposing of much which had impressed the 

 Vice-Chancellor, on the ground of common authorities : " In three 

 cases, however, he was of opinion that the defendant was indebted 

 directly to the plaintiff; " and Lord Justice Giffard closes his judg- 

 ment in these words : " Considering that the defendant had certainly 

 spent labour on the MS., and had pursued a certain amount of research, 

 the amount borrowed was not sufiicient ground for an injunction. On 

 the other hand, there were assertions in the defendant's answer which 

 ■were not ingenuous, and which were even in some respects wholly 



