238 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
side being presented to the eye, which was relieved by a back 
ground of trees and hedges, and the piracy complained of was 
of rather a peculiar character. The defendant is the editor or 
proprietor of a cheap weekly publication, called “ Tom Spring’s 
Life in London one of that class of periodicals which, for lack 
of literary merit, often call in aid the assistance of the arts to 
enrich their work, and present certain things called “ spirited 
and splendid engravings” to the public. The defendant, acting 
under this policy, had presented to his subscribers what he 
termed a splendid portrait, taken from life, of “ Coronation, the 
winner of the last Derby stakes,” an animal of equal beauty and 
fame with Beeswing, but differing from her in the one essential 
feature of his sex. The engraving of the defendant, which was 
a woodcut, represented the near side of the horse, that was sup- 
posed to be in the act of winning the Derby, there being the 
grand stand, winning post, betters, swindlers, black legs, et hoc 
genus omne , all depicted true to nature. 
The plaintiff, notwithstanding the above material variations 
between the two prints', alleged that, as far as the animal was 
concerned, it was a direct copy of his mare, sex and all, only 
that she was reversed ; and he now sought to recover compensa- 
tion for the injury sustained by him in the sale of his print by the 
circulation of the defendant’s publication. 
Several artists were called by the plaintiff, who swore that 
there was no doubt whatever that the figures of the animal and 
the rider had been copied, and with so much accuracy, as that the 
plagiarist had adopted the sex of Beeswing when professing to 
give a portrait of Coronation. 
Mr. Hill addressed the jury for the defendant, ridiculing the 
notion of this 15s. print being damaged by a woodcut, even if it 
were ever so outrageous a copy of it. The jury, however, would 
say whether it was a piracy. There were hardly two things in 
which the pictures resembled each other. The size of the two 
animals was totally different, the position of the horse was dif- 
ferent, and the scenery about was essentially different, so that it 
was difficult to say in what the piracy consisted. 
Lord Abinger left it to the jury to say whether they thought 
the print of the defendant was a piratical invasion of the plaintiff’s 
rights in his original picture of Beeswing. To him, indeed, the 
two seemed very different; but the jury would decide that, 
as well as the further question as to the amount of damage which 
they should be induced to think he had sustained by the act of 
the defendant. 
The jury found for the defendant on both grounds. 
