Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

:

inventions, which there might be reason to apprehend, might be of a nature similar to the said in vention, or on account of any trial at law respecting the same, or in any other case in which it might be judged by the Lord Chancellor necessary or proper to inspect the same; in all which cases the seal of the said packet might be broken by the Lord Chancellor and after such use should have been made of the said specification as occasion should require, the same should be again sealed up, and deposited with a master in Chancery, as before directed. And by the fifth clause it was enacted, that the said packet, so to be deposited, should be kept and remain sealed and unopened (except as aforesaid) until the expiration of the term of seven years from the passing of the act, at which time the specification should be enrolled in the manner directed by the proviso contained in the letterspatent, there to be and remain public for the benefit of all his Majesty's subjects. These were the particular privileges which the legislature had given to Mr. Lee, for the purpose of securing the benefits of his invention to this country; and as Mr. Lacy had made an affidavit that he intended to apply for a similar act of parliament, the learned Counsel hoped that his Lordship would not withhold the great seal from the patent.

The Lord Chancellor said, that he could not put the great seal to a patent which gave the party fifteen months to make out his specification. In the present reign about 20,000 patents had been

six

granted, and this indulgence was extended only in two or three of them. Where the letters-patent were for an invention to be used in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the usual period for enrolling the specification was months: but where they were confined to England only, three or four months was the given time. Mr. Lee's case was a very peculiar one: it was for securing to the state, in a time of war, the benefit of a most important discovery. If Mr. Lacy could make out that the state was to be benefited by his invention in any peculiar way, as in the case of preparing hemp and flax, it might be doubtful whether he might not have a secret specification. His lordship was of opinion, however, that the legislature would pause a long time before they passed such an act in future; and he thought he might venture to say, that if Mr. Lacy were to apply for such an act he would not procure it. The gentleman had said, that if this specification were not kept secret the French might copy it; but his lordship could not establish a new principle merely to prevent the French from smuggling, neither could he put the great seal to a patent without seeing the specification, for it might turn out not to be worth a farthing, and then public genius would be discouraged merely for the benefit of the patentee. Many cases of this nature had occurred. The patent could not pass without the responsibility of the great seal; and if his Lordship could bring himself to pass it, he might be called upon to give an account in par

liament

liament why he had extended this particular privilege to this individual. It was certainly contrary to the general policy of the law, and he could not in justice to the King's subjects affix the great seal to it merely because it was a manufacture which other countries had in common with this..

Court of King's Bench, Monday, Dec. 9-Special Juries.-Philip Hill, v. Gray, Esq.-This was an action for a breach of contract, in the purchase of a picture which the defendant had agreed to buy from the plaintiff for the sum of 1,0501.

The Attorney-General observed, that his client, the plaintiff, was a person of the highest respectability, as he was warranted in saying, from the estimation in which he was held by persons of rank and character with whom he had had transactions similar to that now before the Court. The defendant was one of those wealthy merchants in which this kingdom abounded, who, having acquired a large fortune, devoted a portion to the encouragement of the arts. He had been a considerable buyer of paintings, and through the agency of a Mr. Butt, a common friend of the plaintiff and the defendant, he had entered into a contract for the purchase of a most beautiful and valuable picture, by Claude Loraine, which the eminent and venerable President of the Royal Academy had pronounced not only genuine, but one of the finest of the productions of that exquisite master. With such an authority in its favour, it was wholly un

necessary (as, indeed, he was incompetent) to dilate upon the merits of this picture: Mr. West himself (whose time the learned Counsel regretted he should occupy, while he was engaged upon a great work as an altar-piece to Marylebone-church) would be called as a witness, as well as Sir Thomas Lawrence, at whose house the Claude had been deposited, and other artists of the first rank in this or any other country, who would all depose to the genuineness and incomparable excellence of the piece. It was bought by the plaintiff at the sale of Mr. Hope's pictures: the price given by him was no more than 111., for the learned Counsel had no secrets to keep. Mr. Hill had drawn, as it were, a prize in the lottery: when he bought it, it might be a good or it might be a bad picture, and he took his chance; having employed his skill upon it, removed the dirt, and remedied the injuries of time, he found that it was of greater value, and on that account he had sold it to the defendant for 1000 guineas. This was no unusual circumstance; nobody supposed that the two Claudes belonging to Mr. Angerstein, now prized at 8,000 guineas, had not been frequently sold before they came to that gentleman's hands at an infinitely less sum. Mr. Butt, the mutual friend of the parties, had seen Mr. Hill's Claude, and, admiring it of course, he advised Mr. Gray to buy it, and after a short intercourse, in which it was warranted to be a Claude, Mr. Gray became the buyer at the sum stated, and an early day was fixed for the payment. In the U 2

mean

mean time, however, the defendant having informed some of his friends of his prize, one of them hinted, that after all it might not be a genuine picture by Claude, probably without having seen it, and Mr. Gray immediately took the alarm, and refused to complete his contract. The plaintiff was consequently under the necessity of bringing this action; and the principal question was, whether this picture were or were not a Claude? Upon this point the evidence was most decisive; for, excepting that the learned counsel could not prove by eye-witnesses that the pencil of Claude, who was born in 1600, had been seen employed upon it, he could adduce the most unequivocal testimony to its authenticity the opinion of those competent to judge was all the law required.

:

Mr. James Butt deposed, that he had seen the picture in ques tion for the first time at Mr. Hill's, and esteemed it a landscape by Claude Loraine. The witness very much admired the picture; and knowing that Mr. Gray had been purchasing pictures, not very wisely, the witness, from friendship to him, wished to recommend a fine one to him. He in consequence wrote to the defendant in the beginning of August last, stating that he had seen a very fine Claude that he thought would suit him, and if the defendant were disposed to inspect it, the witness would call the next day, but that he might take a week to determine on the propriety of purchasing. The letter also requested that the defendant would

consult his friends, and not act merely upon the opinion of the witness. The witness saw the defendant the next day, who agreed to look at the Claude, and asked the price, which the witness refused to name until the picture had been seen: he also declined mentioning to whom it belonged: but said that it might be had cheap, as the owner was much in want of money. The defendant still pressed to be informed, and the witness answered in joke, "If you think it stolen, you had better have nothing to do with it." The day following the witness understood that Mr. Gray had seen it, and he told him that the price was 1,200 guineas: the defendant said it was a great deal of money, and added, that Mr. Angerstein had given only 2000 guineas for his finest Claude: the witness knew that that was only a misrepresentation, for the sake of reducing the price demanded: at length, in about a week, the defendant offered 1000 guineas, which the witness, on his own discretion, considering the necessity of the seller, agreed to take for ready money only; but afterwards, he said that a week or a fortnight would not be of consequence.

The question being put to Mr. Scarlett, on the other side, he admitted that the defendant had had the picture home, and had returned it to Sir T. Lawrence, at whose house it had been placed.

Cross-examined.-The witness said, that he was what was commonly called a merchant, with very little to do: he was 'not a

dealer

dealer in pictures: he had not represented to the defendant that the picture belonged to Sir Felix Agar in the letter he wrote, nor had he ever so stated in conversation. Sir F. Agar had some pictures at the plaintiff's that he wished to sell for 4000 guineas, to raise money, but the witness had never said that this Claude was one of them. He had never stated to the defendant that Sir F. Agar was in a rage with him for taking 1000 guineas: something has passed between the witness and the defendant, which made an approach to it at Boydell's, where they saw an engraving of this picture in the Liber Veritatis, with the name of Mr. Agar at the bottom; and the defendant having fallen into the delusion, the witness did not think it incumbent on him to remove it.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that he could imagine no reason why the name of the owner should be withheld in all fair dealing there was no concealment of the kind. It was the duty of the witness, seeing the delusion, to have endeavoured to do it

away..

In the continuation of the cross-examination, this point was still pressed: a letter was produced to, and admitted by the witness, in which he had mentioned the name of Mr. Agar. After the sale, the witness never said that Mr. Gray, having bought the picture under the misrepresentation that it belonged to Sir F. Agar, was therefore at liberty to return it; but he had stated, that if Mr Gray could satisfy him. that the picture was not a genuine Claude, he would never rest till

he was relieved from his bargain.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that the witness appeared to have mistaken both his duty and the law: knowing the existence of the delusion, he ought to have removed it; and unless he did so, the contract was founded upon circumstances of deception; if which circumstances had not existed, the defendant might not have offered so high a price as he proposed not only the law, but every principle of common honesty required that the party should not be allowed to continue under any delusion when it could be prevented.

The Attorney-General hoped that it would not be imputed to him that he at all countenanced the practice, because he endeavoured to show that the delusion could have no operation under the circumstances; the suspicion that the picture came out of a particular cabinet might induce a party to give a higher price, but he submitted that here the contract had been completed before any thing passed which could be misinterpreted into a statement that the picture belonged to the collection of Sir F. Agar.

Lord Ellenborough added, that a third person making a contract like the present ought to take especial care that nothing was said or done by him to lead to mistake. It appeared clear, that though not directly, yet indirectly, Mr. Butt had told the defendant that Sir F. Agar was the owner of the picture.

The witness observed that he had had great difficulty in the business.

Lord Ellenborough.--There can

be

be no difficulty in plain sailing and common honesty, while all is entanglement and delusion when we get out of the straight road. Mr. Scarlett. I wish it to be understood that it is no part of my case to contend that this picture is not a Claude.

The Attorney-General-And a very fine Claude; if that be not allowed, I must proceed to call my witnesses to show that it is; for the admission that it is merely a Claude is not satisfactory.

Mr. Scarlett.-I will not say that it is not a fine Claude, but the value of the picture is no part of my case.

Lord Ellenborough.-I will take it, Mr. Attorney-general, that your proof would go to the extent of showing that it is a genuine picture, as far as that point can be ascertained with regard to some pictures, it now and then happens that they can be traced from hand to hand, through various families, to the original painter in cases, however, where this cannot be done, the party asserting the authenticity is only bound to make out such a similitude as leads competent judges upon the subject to state that it is genuine.

The Attorney-general then proceeded to re-examine his witness, Mr. Butt, who said that the conversation last alluded to took place at the counting-house of the defendant: this was after the price had been agreed upon, and the defendant had had the picture sent home. A Mr. Wright had given the defendant a suspicion that it was not an original Claude, and that it was bought at Mr. Hope's sale at a low price:

the witness inquired, and found the last fact to be so: at another conversation the defendant said positively that the authenticity of the picture had been impeached, and that he would not take it, as it was not a Claude. This was his only reason for refusing to complete the purchase; and the witness then used the expression, that if it were no Claude he would never rest till the defendant was relieved from his bargain. This was a week after Mr. Gray had promised payment of a part of the purchase-money on an early day, and a further day had been named for the rest: no payment, however, had yet been made.

Lord Ellenborough. I really thought, and think, that the cause had before arrived at its termination. It appears that the defendant entered into a contract under a deception, from which the agent, the witness, did not relieve him, though he was aware of it, and had it in his power: that delusion might be a material circumstance in governing his determination as to the price of the picture; and not being removed, it is in law a void contract,

The Attorney General. That being your Lordship's opinion in point of law, the moment it is intimated I am satisfied.

The plaintiff was non-suited.

LIBEL AND DEFAMATION.

Court of Common Pleas.-Wyatt v. Gore.-This was an action brought by Charles Perkin Wyatt, Esq. against Lieutenant-General Gore, governor of the province of Upper Canada, for the pub lication of a false and malicious

« ZurückWeiter »