Current:

Publishers’ Circular (1880-1890), 1st February 1888, Edition 1 of 1, Page 107, We do not know what Mr. Elliot Stock's t...

Page 107
Page 5
5 of 56

On this page

  • Text (3)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      The Publishers In The United States Have...

      Eng cully lish close authors the ^ American There cannot market be the to slig many htest

      doubt that nearly all the most popular English books will be printed or manufactured in

      America , just as they are now , to suit American notions and taste . Why block a beneficent

      scheme by a narrow-minded policy of restriction , as the insertion of a compulsory clause ?

      Supposing the powerful printers' unions of Great Britain agitated—and they are strong agitators

      —for reciprocity in this respect , they could not be blamed , and might even be congratulated if

      they were successful in influencing our legislators to grant similar demands . The principle ,

      however , is contrary to British ideas , which continue to be too generous in matters of tariff

      and international commerce . We would not be astonished if the American

      printers gain the day in this matter , despite the efforts of every author in the Union .

      Restrictions in many industries seem to be coming into vogue more and more in the United States .

      What would be absolutely ludicrous * in Great Britain is there taken as a matter of course .

      Two instances may suffice to show the condition of State law-making . Last winter , at Columbus ,

      a Bill was framed which prohibited all inhabitants of Ohio from , eating meat slaughtered

      and dressed outside of State limits . At Springfield , Illinois , too , the coopers' unions sought

      the passage of an Act to prohibit the use of secondhand flour barrels and butter firkins !

      A well-known economist has recorded these examples ; and possibly in the matter of

      copyright they may be equalled if not surpassed in coming congressional politics .

      1 O »

      Feb. I, 1888 The Publishers' Circular 10...

      Feb . i , 1888 The Publishers' Circular 107 i

      We Do Not Know What Mr. Elliot Stock's T...

      We do not know what Mr . Elliot Stock ' s tactics may be , and have no desire to remark

      specially on the case a report of which we print to-day . Excepting for the parties

      immediately interested , details of business transactions of this nature are not particularly

      instructive . Mr . Stock had the law on his side , and got a verdict for the full amount

      claimed . So the matter ends for the litigants . But Mr . Stock had no authority to speak as he

      did of the ' English Catalogue' and the Publishers ' Circular . He is not connected in any way with

      M * wr the editing of either of these publications , but he must be aware that very mr great »—r pains jfc are

      taken to secure completeness in the listsand , that it is a flagrant mis-statement to say that

      ' not a twentieth of the works published appeared there . ' Possibly the assertion may have

      been made hastily , especially as it was important that something disparaging should be

      said at that particular time in Court . Ii ^ uer

      only in the newspapers that we have observed & ¦ ¦ ,

      We Do Not Know What Mr. Elliot Stock's T...

      Mr . Stock's remarks , which we take the earliest opportunity to contradict flatly . We

      can assure our readers that the same care is exercised in preparing the ' * English Catalogue '

      fiftv which vears has . been to the bestowed satisfaction upon of it the for trade the past and

      , / , / 7 the public .

      Hllbesheimer & Faulkner V. Mendels-

      HlLBESHEIMER & FAULKNER V .

      MENDELSsohn . —In this case , which was tried some time ago the , defendant the jury awarded for infringement £ 300 damages of the aga « opy inst

      ri The TVi ght ft defendant rlfiffindant of the work applied applied ' Throug that that the the h the ver verdict dict Meadows should should . '

      be set aside on the ground that the damages were ^ ^ ^ / ^ l * , j * excessive ^^ A ^^ ^^ ^^ *^ M *~ f J * . v ^^ w . The ~ ^ ^ ¦ " ¦ ¦ cas " ¦ »^ " ¦»¦ e — was - reported — y ^ — — — in pur ,

      issue of November 15 . Evidence was given by the plaintiff as to the cost and saleable

      value vain £ 1800 « of of , and his his work work sold , , so which which rapidl it it y appeared appeared that the had naa edition cost cost was , soon Jt , ^ out ¦*—*¦ of ¦* -- print . It was - - stated that ____

      v v mj ^ j ^ j 9 ^ f ^^ ^^ ^^ —• f ~ - — — — — — — ^ _ price 8 , 000 ~\ of \_ cop m . 2 s ies . 6 d v had » . a »* w been copy - ¦ " - ¦— sold and for altogether - America - above _____ at a

      250 — ^ ^ j ^ - \^ 000 ^ -r mmm cop *~ r ^ r ies ^™ were - — m , sold . — — The — f m — — - - Solicitor-General f ^ p . n , ^ rn . 1 and a . rtA Mr Mr . . Witt Witt were were for tor the the defendant defendant .

      in support of the application , and urged that , their LA client had acted - —¦ -- —¦ in the fai - rest way - - and

      offered ^/ Jb A ^^ ... VAJ > an ^ - ^ m , ^ , ^* account a *» > rt » — — of ——— sales , and — that — — the , evidence of damage was entirel mmi y speculative k h . _ *^ r *^^— __ p . ^ __

      Sir Charles Russell and Mr ^^ . H . Dickens * ^ , for the plaintiff , were not called upon . The

      conclusion Court Court , , without without that heariner hearing they could them them not , , came came disturb to to the the the verdict . Mr ¦ . Baron ¦— ¦ Huddleston . _ -. _ - _ said they — -

      Y ^^ r . A . ^ -- * . JK . ^^ * S m .- _ -. - _ ---. ^ m — v ^^ — —— _ - could not see their way to set aside the verdict ^ as ^ f ^ i J to ^ f m , _ tW ¦ the ^ , J -- ^^ ^^^ ^ amount W ^ # ^ -. 4 ^ ^^ T ^*» «»*^ - ^ of ~~~ ^^ ¦ damages ™ - ^ "" ¦ ' ^ - . ^ fc ^^ ""^ — . ' No " — doubt _ . __ _ ,-

      * vindictive' damages ought not to be given in the The case learned , nor did Jud it appear had summed that they had the been case . and for up the

      very vfiT-rr carefull ^ n rA fnllv y and favourably favourablv tor the deten defen--the dant eloquence , anxious , no of doubt Sir ~ ~ Charles , ' to tak Hussell e the Fr- « - ed . ge The ' off

      -^^ J J . M J pJL ^ W ^ J ^ ^^^ f ^ L ^_> ^^^ ^ — ' " ^^^ ^^ to » |^ -V ^__ - ^ . —^ ^__^^ — — - » ^ — ^__*_^ ___ __ — — _ work ^^ ^^^^^^ was ^^^^ undoubtedly of a high character , and 1 was beautiful rf in j » _— - _ its -v rv conception - and ~ - most

      MTJL . » . - _>« . » V (<« P >/ P * ' - ^ .- ' » - ^* ^ - ^ ^^ ^»^^ —— - — — _— — _ _ had artistic cost , hi a g great hly ar deal tistic of in money its execution to bring , it and out it .

      No doubt the cards [ which were the cause of litigation ] were very inferior in character

      but J ± JL ^ # ^ -- Hlk ^ they J ^ ^* ^^^ ^ ^ ¦ were w w ^^ ^ " ^^ cheap ^ ^ ^^ ^^ » and had — ^ embodied — many , of the picturesand so had forestalled the sale

      of future editions , . The evidence of the plaintiff jk ^^^ b as mrr to f loss # had not -- been --v --- answered - — - and - the ^^ ^^ *^ ^_^ -- ^ ^ -. ^ - ^^ ^ . ^ ^ - _^ ^ ^ ^ ' ** ^ ^ ^ *^^^ ^ ^_^ — — — — — — , y — — —

      jury had discounted it ?~ The defendant had lessen certainl rti Jk the y taken damages a fair . » Of - and course . proper in such ~ course - cases to

      ^^ - ^_^ p ^^ _ r ^^^ ^__ ^^ » ^ ^*^ ^ **^ ^ Tf ™ ^ » " ¦ ' yyf c ^^^* »^< - ' — ' ^ " — ' "' ~ — ^ — - — ' ^ — juries had to form the best estimate they could , and how could the Court say they w-ere wfontf ?

      The verdict would not be disturbed and the application must be dismissed with costs .

      Mr . Justice Manisty concurred . Stock v . Deane ¦ . —The report of the City

      w -v ^^^ - ^^ — — ... . ^^ ^^ mr m ^^^ r ^^ " ^^ ^^^^« ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^ " ^^^ ^^ ^^ - ^— — m ™~ — ' - » — — — — - ^^ ™~ — —« Press says : This was a claim for £ 25 . 16 $ vlld ., balance due on the publishing of books for ^^^_ ^^^^ ^^ ih ^ a ^ HA HA ^ a

      the ^^ defendant ^^ . Mr . Lewis Glyn was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr . Wildey Wright appeared i

      for the defendant . Mr . Glyn stated that the laintiffMr . Elliot Stockwas a pub ^

      p , , lisher in , the Ji City , carrying on' businesa Hb ^ ^^ mmmm « . ¦¦ vn ^ atoflMMaHMMtfH ^ P ^ Hpi ^ MMW ^ MIifc'HHMWHA 4 MlM' ^^ V ^ K ! J

  • Citation
    • Publishers’ Circular (1880-1890), Feb. 1, 1888, page 107, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/pc/issues/tec_01021888/page/5/