exposing his person. The indictment was as follows:- this restriction-there must be a wicked intention, "The jurors for our lady the Queen, upon their oath, which should be left to the jury. Take the case of a present, that James Webb, late of the parish of St. man exposing his person on Salisbury Plain; that Margaret, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, would be no offence, if he took care that no one should labourer, on the 2nd day of October, in the twelfth see him.] The indictment does not state an offence; year of the reign of our sovereign lady Victoria, by the for the exposing and exhibiting are stated to have been grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain committed "in the presence" of Mary Ann, &c., which and Ireland Queen, defender of the faith, with force is quite consistent with the fact, that they were not and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county afore- committed in her sight. The words " expose" and said, in a certain public place, within a certain victual-" exhibit" are not terms of art, and do not necessarily ling ale-house there situate, unlawfully, wilfully, pub- import an act done in the actual view. The case of R. licly, and indecently did expose and exhibit his private v. Watson (2 Cox, C. C. 376) shews that the exposing parts, naked and uncovered, in the presence of Mary the private parts to a woman only is not at common Ann, the wife of Edward Cherrill, and of divers other law a crime punishable by indictment. [Pollock, C. B. of the liege subjects of our lady the Queen then and -We are all of opinion that we are bound to look at there being, for the space of divers, to wit, ten minutes, the indictment in a case of this nature, and if bad to to the great damage and common nuisance of the said arrest the judgment; it is better if we can confine the Mary Ann Cherrill, and the said other liege subjects of discussion to a mere question of pleading. Cresswell, our said lady the Queen then and there being, to the J.-What is the meaning of the word "exhibit?" You great encouragement of indecency and immorality, and may say a counsel exhibited great talent.] "Exhibit against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown and exhibited" and "expose and exposed" have the and dignity." On the trial, it was proved by the pro- same meaning. They are not terms of art, and non secutrix, that she was taking care of a public-house, constat that they import an act done in a person's and standing behind the bar, through which was the actual view. Here the indictment charges no offence, public passage from the entrance door of the public- for although it states the offence to have been commithouse to the bar parlour; that he conducted himself in ted in the presence of Mary Ann, &c., it does not follow an offensive manner, but not amounting to an indecent that it was committed in her sight; nor is there aught exposure, and whilst so doing several persons passed to inconsistent with the indictment to suppose that the and fro; that he then took out and exposed his private woman's back was turned. It has always been laid parts to her, and thereupon she directly ran off and down, that the exposure must have been in the presence told her husband; that there was no one in sight but of more than one. The passage in a public-house is herself at the time when she saw his private parts ex- not a public place. [Patteson, J.-The nature of the posed. Two points were made: first, that an indecent house may affect the question.] The case of R. v. exposure in the bar of a public-house is not an indict- Watson shews that the exposing one's private parts to able offence; secondly, assuming the place sufficient, one woman only is not at common law an indictable there must be more than one present at the time of the offence; and the phrase, “conducting himself in an exposure, or the offence is not complete. The jury, offensive manner," cannot be so construed as to imply under the direction of the learned serjeant, found the or describe criminal conduct, however irritating the prisoner guilty, subject to the opinion of the judges on acts might have been. The act constituting the offence these points. was committed in the presence of Mary Ann Cherrill only; and, therefore, on the authority of R. v. Watson, the present indictment cannot be sustained. Clarkson, for the prisoner.-The indictment is bad, as not shewing that the offence was committed within the right and view &c., but "in the presence of &c., in Prendergast, contra.-This is an indictable offence; a certain common" &c. [Pollock, C. B.-That is not and there is such evidence as convicts the prisoner of the question before us.] It is submitted, that the whole enough to prove him guilty. Every one has a right of record is before the Court. [Pollock, C. B.-You may entry to an inn, and the landlord is bound to admit all bring your writ of error.] To constitute exposure, it persons. The indictment avers the offence to have been is absolutely necessary that it should be in an open and committed "in a certain public place, within a certain public place, or publicly, or to the people. The offence victualling ale-house there situate," and with having charged is one at common law. It is no offence to ex- done the act "unlawfully, wilfully, publicly, and indepose a man's private parts to a woman, unless such ex-cently;" and that is a nuisance at common law. [Polposure be committed with the express intent to insult lock, C. B.-" Indecently," in an indictment, relates her; and such offence is punishable by the Vagrant Act*. rather to manners than to morals. Indecency has a It is a mistake to prefer an indictment in this case as legal meaning.] When public decency is shocked, it for a nuisance, for at the time of exposure no person becomes a public offence. "Expose" may mean to lay was present. (1 Hawk. P. C., c. 5, ss. 4, 5; 1 East, bare; "exhibit" to call attention to the parts so laid Crown Law, 3; R. v. Crunden, 2 Camp. 89; R. v. Sir bare. As to the case of Salisbury Plain, it is not a Charles Sedley, 1 Sid. 168; 10 St. Tr., App., 93; Chitty's public place. [Cresswell, J.-There is a highway Burn's Justice," Lewdness"). [Parke, B.-I tried a across it. Pollock, C. B.-The real answer is as to the case at York, in 1830, where a Frenchman was in- mens rea and non rea. We cannot make distinctions as dicted for exposing his person at a window on the to places: "to the pure, all things are pure;" and, to second floor in a house in Micklegate, for the purpose carry on the argument, the indictment ought to shew of attracting the notice of a female servant opposite. that the person was not blind.] To "exhibit" means I left it to the jury to say whether he might not have to shew to the party; and to do the act charged in the been seen by persons passing along the streets. They indictment behind the party's back would not be an found that he might have been so seen; I, therefore, exhibition. (2 Camp. 87). The case of R. v. Watdirected them to find a verdict of guilty; and I passed son is different: the indictment there charged that sentence on the prisoner. I have not a note of the case the prisoner committed an offence against the particuwith me; but I should not have thus left the case to lar girl, by soliciting her chastity, and endeavouring the jury, had it been impossible for any other but the to corrupt her morals; and so an indictable offence was woman to have seen him. Pollock, Č. B.-There is not disclosed. In the present case there was a clear invasion of the rights of the public. The fact that the woman was alone was a mere casualty-that did not influence the prisoner; the place was a public one; others had been present and might have been present, *By 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 4, exposing a man's person with intent to insult a female, is an offence for which the offender on conviction may be treated as a rogue and vagabond. the case within the rule laid down in R. v. Watson PREROGATIVE COURT. and any one might have seen the act; which makes this case similar in principle to the one tried before Parke, B., at York. În Sir Charles Sedley's case, the indictment charged the exposure to have been committed "within sight and view." [Patteson, J.-And goes on to say, "did expose to the view of" &c.-did expose to the view of the persons so present. It is quite consistent with the present indictment, that, although no person saw him but the woman, no offence was committed. Why were not the words "to the view of" inserted? Clarkson.-Those words are used in Mr. Archbold's Forms.] Those Forms are no authority. [Pollock, C. B.-I must say that I know no one who, by his great diligence, accuracy, and perseverance, has deserved better of the Profession and the public than Mr. Archbold. We are only here to see that everything necessary is positively charged in the indictment, not what might be. This indictment imports merely that people might This was a proceeding by the residuary legatee for have seen him. We are here to see that the act charged life against the executor of a will, calling upon him to be a crime, and, as such, it should distinctly appear exhibit an inventory and account of the estate of the upon the record.] The indictment clearly shews an testator. The executor appeared under protest, alleg offence against public decency; and although only one ing, among other things, that the party proceeding had, person be present, that is sufficient to establish it. One together with her husband, released and for ever disperson's evidence is sufficient to prove that a house is charged him, his heirs, administrators, and assigns, of kept as a brothel. The prisoner's aim was to commit a and from all manner of action and actions, cause and gross public offence, and the woman saw it. The place causes of actions, suits, debts, dues, sum and sums of in which the act was done shews it to amount to a pub-money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, lic offence. If the crime had been the exhibiting an covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, proobscene picture, the exposing of it near a public high-mises, variances, damages, judgments, extents, execu way would have been sufficient. tions, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law and Clarkson, in reply, quoted Strange, 789. equity, which, against the executor, the party proceedPOLLOCK, C. B.-It appears to me that a conviction ing and her husband, or either of them, ever or then ought not to have taken place, and I consider that the had, or which they or their heirs, executors, or admicase of R. v. Watson covers this case. It is not neces-nistrators could, should, or might have, for, upon, or sary to decide whether the indictment be sustainable or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever, not, though, in passing, I may say that it would be from the beginning of the world to the day of the date better to adhere to the usual precedents. R. v. Watson of the said indenture and release. The act on petition decides my judgment. There, there were two counts; went on to state, that the release was a full and comand, on proof that the act was done in the presence of plete discharge of all obligations on the executor; that but one person, the defendant was acquitted on the the parties thereto were fully acquainted with the nasecond count; and, subsequently, judgment was ar- ture and effect of it; and that, moreover, the balance rested on the first count, which alleged the act to have of the personal estate of the deceased was, after payment been done in the presence of but one person. Now, of the funeral expenses and the debts and liabilities the evidence in the present case shews that but one due and owing by the testator, handed over to the resiperson was present when the act that would constitute duary legatee and her husband, who gave their receipts an indictable offence was committed. Striking out of and acknowledgments for the same; and that the whole this indictment all that was not proved, it brings the of the estate had been administered by the executor; present case within the principle which governed the and it concluded by submitting, that he was not bound, decision in R. v. Watson. The result will be, that all and ought not, by reason of the premises, to be comthat makes the case different from the one cited will pelled, to exhibit an inventory of the goods of the debe struck out, and the indictment will become one ceased, or to render any account of the administration which, on the authority of R. v. Watson-a case that thereof; wherefore he prayed to be dismissed from the we fully confirm-we ought to arrest, since the evi- decree calling upon him so to do. dence is only sufficient to sustain such an indictment as in R. v. Watson; therefore, no conviction ought to have taken place. PARKE, B.—I am of the same opinion. I think that the phrase "in the presence of" means "in the sight of." I will not say whether the indictment might be bad in arrest of judgment; perhaps it might be held good. If we strike out all that is not proved, the case becomes identical with that in R. v. Watson; and by that we are bound. PATTESON, J.-I am entirely of the same opinion, and on the same grounds. If the case of R. v. Watson be correctly decided, the words in this indictment, stating the exposure and exhibition in the presence of "divers other of the liege subjects" &c., are material; but they are not proved. If we strike them out, then it follows, that the case is exactly on all fours with that of R. v. Watson. As to the indictment, I am not called upon to say whether it be bad or no; I own I entertain a very strong opinion about it, but I guard myself against saying that it is a good indictment. CRESSWELL, J.-The words being struck out brings Bayford, in support of the protest, submitted, that the executor was, by the comprehensive release given by the residuary legatee, in which her husband had joined, discharged from exhibiting any inventory and account; that all the proceeds of the estate, after the payment of the debts, had been handed over by him; and that he was not now to be called upon to account. [He cited Millington v. Sorsby, (1 Lee, 526).] Haggard, contra, was stopped by the Court. Sir H. JENNER FUST.-The case of Kenny v. Jackson (1 Hagg. 106) is decisive of the question. It is a matter of duty, and part of his oath, for an executor to deliver an inventory and account when called upon to do so. Here is a release of an extraordinary kind, drawn up by the executor himself, a solicitor, in his own office, containing a discharge from all demands from the beginning of the world to the day of its date. I have no hesitation in overruling the protest, and directing the executor to exhibit an inventory and account. The question of costs may stand over until the case is finally disposed of. VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE'S COURT. as to some of such impressions, the same were produced and obtained in the following manner; "certain of the plates were given to Mr. Brown, a printer at Windsor, for the purpose of printing off certain impressions thereof for her Majesty and the plaintiff; and Right of Property-Description-Catalogue-Injunction the said Mr. Brown employed therein a person of the -Practice-Action. name of Middleton, who, without Mr. Brown's consent The Author and Proprietor of an unpublished literary or knowledge, and in violation of the confidence reor artistical Work is entitled to restrain Parties, posed in him, took impressions thereof for himself; and haring unduly obtained a Knowledge of the Subjects of the said Jasper Tomsett Judge has bought, or in some such Work, from publishing, without his Consent, a manner obtained, the same from the said Middleton." Catalogue enumerating, identifying, and commenting on And then, among other charges, it was charged, "that those Subjects. her Majesty the Queen is interested in the subjectThe Publication of a descriptive Catalogue, made by C., matters of this suit, or some of them, and that the without the Consent of A. and B., the Plaintiff's Con- Attorney-General ought, by reason thereof, to be a sort and Plaintiff in the Suit, (the Means of making party defendant hereto for and on behalf of her Mawhich were unduly obtained), of Etchings executed by jesty." It was then prayed that the defendants might A. and B., the Produce of their combined private be ordered to deliver up to the plaintiff all impressions Labour, for their private Use, and not published by and copies of the said several etchings respectively made them, is an Interference by C. with the Property of A. by the plaintiff; and that they, their servants, &c., and B. might be restrained by injunction from exhibiting the Etchings so executed by them they are entitled to retain in said gallery or collection of etchings, and from making, a State of Privacy, and to withhold from Publication; &c. copies, &c., (as read in the judgment of the Court); and such Right of Privacy is not lost by Gifts of Im-"and that the said defendants, their servants, agents, pressions of some of the Etchings to private Friends; and workmen, may be in like manner restrained from nor by placing the Plates in the Hands of a Printer, selling, or in any manner publishing, and from printing to take Impressions for the Use of A. and B.; nor by the said descriptive catalogue, or any work being or the Fact, that Impressions were taken without their purporting to be a catalogue of the said etchings; and Consent, the Plates being their undoubted Property. that all the copies of the said catalogue in the possession The Right of A. and B. extends to the Prevention of or power of the said defendants may be given up to be Persons, unduly obtaining a Knowledge of the Subjects destroyed." The bill was filed on the 20th October, of the Etchings, from publishing, without their Consent, 1848, on which day the four affidavits, on which the a Description, a Summary, or a Catalogue of them. injunction against the defendant Strange was granted, The bill in this case stated, that her Majesty the Queen were filed. On the 23rd October and 4th Novemand the plaintiff had occasionally, for their amusement, ber the bill was amended and re-amended. Contemmade drawings and etchings, being principally of sub- poraneously with this suit was an information filed by jects of private and domestic interest to themselves, and the Attorney-General against the same defendant, in of which etchings they had made impressions for their most respects similar to the bill, and praying similar own use, and not for publication. That, for greater relief. Mr. Edward White, the solicitor of the plainprivacy, such impressions had been for the most part tiff, by his first affidavit, said, that his Royal Highmade by means of a private press kept for that purpose; ness, on the occasion of making his affidavit, informed and the plates themselves had been ordinarily kept by deponent, that he recollected that on one occasion her Majesty under lock, and the impressions had been some of the plates were sent to Mr. Brown, a printer placed in some of the private apartments of her Majesty at Windsor, for the purpose of taking some impresat Windsor, and in such private apartments only. sions for her Majesty and himself. That the defendants, Strange and Judge, had, in some the Prince further informed him, that, according to the manner, obtained some of such impressions, which had best of his recollection and belief, the above was the been surreptitiously taken from some of such plates, only occasion on which any of the plates were out of and had thereby been enabled to form, and had formed, the custody of her Majesty or of himself; and that all a gallery or collection of such etchings, of which they other impressions from such plates were made from the intended to make a public exhibition, without the per- said private printing-press in the royal palace, in the mission of her Majesty and the plaintiff, or either of presence of her Majesty and of himself. Mr. White, them, and against their will. That the defendants had in another affidavit, said, that, on the 17th October, he compiled and prepared a work, which had been printed had an interview with the son of Strange, who admitted and published by the defendant Strange, of which the that the catalogue was printed by his father. Mr. title-page or cover was as follows:-"A descriptive George Edward Anson, keeper of her Majesty's privy Catalogue of the Royal Victoria and Albert Gallery of purse, among other things, deposed to receiving the Etchings." [Then followed a quotation from Shak- descriptive catalogue directed to her Majesty; “and I speare.] "London. ... Every purchaser of this say, that I know the etchings mentioned in the said catalogue will be presented (by permission) with a fac catalogue, and I know that the same are kept with simile of the autograph of either her Majesty or of the great privacy by her Majesty and his Royal Highness, Prince Consort, engraved from the original, the selec- and that impressions of such etchings are kept in the tion being left to the purchaser. Price sixpence." And private apartments of her Majesty, and in such apartwhich work had been compiled, printed, and published ments only; and that a few, and very few only, of them by the defendant Strange. [Then followed a long in- have been given to some of the friends of her Majesty troduction, stating the general nature of the subjects, and the Prince; and I believe and have no doubt, that and then a detailed list of sixty-three etchings, with no such collection as that advertised for exhibition in commendatory observations on them, and various facts the said catalogue could have been formed, except from or alleged facts relating to them.] That the catalogue impressions surreptitiously obtained from the private could not have been made except from impressions sur- apartments of her Majesty; and I believe and have no reptitiously obtained. That the impressions were in- doubt, that the same has been so formed." The affidatended for private use, and not for publication; and vit of his Royal Highness Albert Prince of Saxe Coburg very few had been given away, and those only to pri- and Gotha, Consort of her Majesty the Queen, after vate friends, (all which is set forth in the plaintiff's referring to the catalogue, said, that the etchings were affidavit). The bill then, as amended, charged, that, made by her Majesty and himself for their private use, VOL. XIII. c And that and not for publication, and that "we had a private press, from which we occasionally printed impressions of the etchings; and that the plates were and are kept locked up by her Majesty, in order to prevent the same becoming public; but that copies of the impressions were placed and left in several of the private apartments of her Majesty at Windsor, and in such private apartments only." That " among such etchings are portraits of myself, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and other members of the royal family and personal friends of her Majesty; and that many of them were drawn by her Majesty from life and afterwards transferred to copper, and etched by her Majesty and myself; and amongst such etchings are portraits of some of our favourite dogs, taken by her Majesty and myself from life, and etchings from old and rare engravings in the possession of her Majesty, and several from such original designs as in the said catalogue mentioned," &c. That "the impressions of the said etchings were intended for the private use of her Majesty and myself only; and that, although copies of some of them have been given occasionally and very rarely to some of the personal friends of her Majesty, one to one friend and one to another, yet I say, speaking positively for myself, and to the best of my belief for her Majesty, that no such collection as that so advertised for exhibition as aforesaid was ever given away by us or either of us, or by our or either of our permission." That "I believe and have no doubt, that no such collection could have been formed, except by impressions surreptitiously and improperly obtained; and that the same has been so formed. And I believe, that the defendant William Strange, or his confederate or confederates, the person or persons really in possession of the collection advertised for exhibition, must have obtained and did obtain the same from some person or persons surreptitiously. And I say, that, by whatever means the same were obtained, the exhibition of the said etchings, or of any of them, is without the sanction and against the wishes of her Majesty and myself; and that such exhibition will be in the highest degree of fensive to her Majesty and myself. I say, that I believe that such catalogue, and the descriptive and other remarks therein contained, could not have been compiled or made, except by means of the possession of the several impressions of the said etchings so surreptitiously obtained as aforesaid." The affidavit then spoke of the time of the fact of the intended exhibition first coming to the deponent's knowledge. Upon these materials, on the same 20th October, an order was made, whereby William Strange, his agents, servants, and workmen, were restrained from exhibiting the gallery or collection of etchings in the bill mentioned, or any of such etchings, and from making or permitting to be made any such engravings or copies of the same or any of them, and from in any manner publishing the same or any of them, or from parting with or disposing of the same or any of them, and from selling or in any manner publishing, and from printing the descriptive catalogue in the bill mentioned, or any work being, or purporting to be, a catalogue of the said etchings, until he should have fully answered the bill, or the Court should make order to the contrary. On the 6th November a motion was made for the extension of the injunction, so far as the etchings were concerned, to other defendants; and on that occasion the same was extended, the motion being supported by the following affidavits, filed on the 4th November* :---Mr.J. B. Brown, a printer at Windsor, *It is necessary to state the effect of this evidence, as the motion for dissolving the injunction as against Strange was heard on the assumption, as his Honor understood, that a material fact therein contained, viz. that Middleton was the servant of Mr. Brown, the printer, was admitted on both sides, and as, without this, the argument would be obscure. by his affidavit, stated, that he was entrusted by her Majesty and the Prince Consort with the printing of impressions from plates which had been engraved by them, and was so employed from October, 1840, to November, 1847, and that he faithfully sent all the perfect impressions to Windsor Castle. In this work Mr. Brown employed a journeyman, whom he named, and in whom he had confidence, as pressman, who Mr. Brown swore he believed, as he had been informed, had secretly made impressions of the plates, which impressions he retained without the consent or knowledge of Mr. Brown, and which was in violation of his duty, and of the confidence reposed in him by his master. A man named Whittington, formerly in the employ of Mr. Brown, swore that he recollected the taking off the impressions by command of her Majesty, and that, although the journeyman employed as before mentioned always returned to Mr. Brown all the print paper delivered out, yet he habitually took off copies for himself on card or common paper. The deponent also swore that he had about thirteen of such impressions, which the journeyman gave him, and that about a year and a half ago Jasper Tomsett Judge met him in the street, and told him that he (Judge) could make it worth his while if he wished to dispose of the prints. Mr. J. F. Lawrence, of Windsor, deposed that he knew Mr. Jasper Tomsett Judge, and recollected hearing a rumour, four or five months ago, that Judge had a collection of prints and etchings made by her Majesty and Prince Albert; and afterwards met Judge, and said to him, "I understand you have some drawings of the Queen's and Prince Albert's?" To which Judge replied, Oh, you are quite welcome to see them." That, about a month after such conversation, and not more than three or four months ago, deponent called at Judge's house, who then produced a portfolio, with about eighty prints in it, and said that they had been engraved by the Prince and the Queen. That the deponent observed the names of the Queen and Prince Albert on them, and noticed that on some of them the signatures or names appeared reversed, as they would be, supposing the names had been engraved on the plates as the signatures would be usually written; and that these prints were on separate sheets of paper, some of which appeared to the deponent, Mr. Lawrence, to be card-board paper, and one or two appeared to be glazed foolscap paper. The defendant Strange, after this extension of the injunction to Judge, put in his answer, by which he denied that he had in any manner, either surreptitiously or otherwise, obtained or possessed himself of any impressions of the etchings, or copies of them. Believed that the defendant Mr. Jasper Tomsett Judge purchased certain impressions of the etchings from one Middleton, one only of which etchings was sent to him (Strange) for the purpose of being mounted, and, with this exception, he denied that any impressions were in his possession or power. He believed that the defendant Judge alone had been enabled to form, and had formed, a collection of the etchings. He said, that about the end of August, 1848, Judge called on him, saying he had a collection of the etchings, which he shewed to Strange in September, and proposed to him to exhibit them, if her Majesty and the Prince did not object, at the Egyptian Hall, or some other public institution of equal respectability; and that Strange should advance the funds, and he and Judge should share equally the profits. He then believed that the impressions had not been improperly obtained, but that the same had come into Judge's hands fairly and honestly; and after the interview, Judge wrote the descriptive catalogue, which Strange then printed, striking off only fifty-one copies, after which the type was broken up. He believed, that, on the 9th October, 1848, Judge, with a view of bringing the subject of the exhibition to the notice of her Majesty and the Prince, and of ascertain ing whether it was objected to, sent them copies of the catalogue, and also the Duchess of Kent, the King and Queen of the Belgians, and others. That the catalogue never had been published, or sold, or exposed for sale, and that the first intimation he ever received that the contemplated exhibition was disapproved of by her Majesty and the Prince was a letter from his son, sent to him at Barnsley, in which it was said that Mr. White, a solicitor, had stated that fact, upon which he determined to take no further steps in it, and abandon the scheme, which he had accordingly done; and he expressly denied that he ever threatened or intended to make such exhibition, or to make any copies or engravings of the etchings. He said, that, ever since he became aware of the objection, he was anxious, as a loyal and dutiful subject, in every respect to comply with the wishes of the Queen, not only by abandoning the exhibition, but by delivering up all copies of the catalogue in his power, as her Majesty might direct; and also by giving his assurance that he would neither sanction nor be a party to any exhibition of the etchings, or circulation of the catalogue; and with this view a correspondence had taken place between Mr. W. H. Smith, as solicitor on his behalf, and Mr. White, on behalf of her Majesty and the Prince. That in this correspondence all disrespect to the Queen was disclaimed, and complaint made that the proceedings were instituted without Mr. Strange having an opportunity of explanation, and an offer to abstain from the exhibition, to give up the copies of all catalogues, and to give information as to how the etchings were obtained, so far as he was able; and he was met by a demand of submission and of expression of regret, that being resisted on the ground that it would be an admission of improper conduct on the part of Mr. Strange, which he emphatically and indignantly denied; and this correspondence closed, with an offer, that, if Mr. Strange would give up all copies of all the catalogues, and undertake not to publish the same or any similar, the information and bill should be dismissed without costs, which was agreed to, except that the dismissal should be with costs, so as to save Mr. Strange harmless from expense, which modification was refused. The answer proceeded to say, that Mr. Strange was altogether unconscious of having done anything respecting the exhibition and catalogue contrary to law, or having acted otherwise than as becomes a lawful and dutiful subject of her Majesty the Queen; and that he is both morally and legally free from all imputation of wrongdoing contained in the bill; and he insists, that, as a matter of strict right, he is entitled to publish and circulate the catalogue, and that the plaintiff has no legal right to restrain such publication; and that he is willing and offers to forego whatever legal rights he may have to publish the catalogue, and to abandon its publication, and to give up all copies in his possession or power, if the information and bill be dismissed, and the defendant be indemnified for all costs; and he submitted to the Court, whether her Majesty the Queen has any interest in the legal matters in the suit; and insisted that his Royal Highness Prince Albert has no right of property in any of the drawings or etchings, or impressions from the same, which have been done or executed by her Majesty the Queen alone, or jointly with his Royal Highness; and that his Royal Highness had no right in this suit to restrain the exhibition or publication of the same, or any of them; and he insisted that his Royal Highness ought to have distinguished what drawings or etchings, or impressions from the same, he claimed as his own property; and the defendant claimed the benefit of this objection in the same way as if he had demurred to the bill. A notice of motion, for the 7th December, was given by Strange, to dissolve the injunction, so far as it restrained him, his agents, servants, and workmen, from selling or in any manner publishing, and from printing, the descriptive catalogue in the bill mentioned, or any work being or purporting to be a catalogue of the said etchings. On it being stated that the defendant had that morning filed affidavits in answer to affidavits filed by the plaintiff the previous day, the motion was ordered to stand over. Dec. 14 and 15.-Russell said, he appeared before the Court, pursuant to a notice which had been given by the defendant Strange, to move to dissolve the injunction which had been granted against him, so far as it sought to restrain him from selling, or in any manner publishing or printing, the descriptive catalogue in the bill mentioned. [Knight Bruce, V. C.-This is a limited application to dissolve an injunction in part. If I recollect rightly, when the application was made, this particular portion of the case which is now before me was one on which I expressed a considerable difficulty at the time. I thought, upon the whole, however, that it was the right course to grant the injunction. I required an undertaking as to damages, which was given with great readiness, certainly.] The bill itself stated, that her Majesty and her consort had, for their amusement, occasionally made drawings and etchings, principally of subjects of private and domestic interest to themselves, and of which etchings they have made impressions for their own use, and not for publication; that, for greater privacy, such impressions had for the most part been made by means of a private press, and the plates themselves had been ordinarily kept by her Majesty under lock, and the impressions have been placed in some of the private apartments only at Windsor; that the defendant Strange, and Mr. Jasper Tomsett Judge and Mr. J. A. F. Judge, in some manner obtained some impressions surreptitiously taken from the plates, whereby they had been enabled to form a gallery or collection of such etchings, of which they intended to make an exhibition, without or against the permission either of her Majesty or Prince Albert. The remarks and criticisms in the catalogue were perfectly unobjectionable, unless so far as a mind of great delicacy and refinement might think them too flattering or laudatory, although the writer might think that the works were such as language could scarcely do justice to. It was not pretended that the description in the catalogue contained anything contrary to public taste or public decency. The injunction had been obtained upon four affidavits, one of which was made by Mr. George Anson, who stated that the impressions were kept in the private apartments of the Castle; and his Royal Highness also swore that they were kept in the private apartments of, and printed off at a private press in, the Castle. The information had been filed with great precipitancy, even before an answer to an application from Mr. Strange to the illustrious personages or their servants could be obtained. The Court would see that Mr. Strange had been represented through the press, which communicated the proceedings in this Court, in a very questionable light indeed; he was charged with being a party to what was termed an improper and surreptitious obtaining of the etchings. [Knight Bruce, V. C.-The catalogue appears to be printed by Mr. Strange. I wish to know whether he was the publisher as well as the printer?-whether it appears that the defendant printed the catalogue for himself or for any other person?] The catalogue never has been published. It was printed for himself, and with a view to a joint speculation between himself and others in the speculation, but at his own expense, and at his own press. It was unfortunate that such charges had been made as those contained in these proceedings against a respectable tradesman. Mr. Strange, in his answer, denied that he had in any manner, either surreptitiously or otherwise, obtained or possessed himself of any impressions of the etchings, or copies of them. He believed that the defendant Mr. Jasper Tomsett |