Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/318

 Rh been taken from a source common to mankind, and an action 'for infringement was sustained. Cave, J., in the first instance had observed: — "It is quite clear, of course, lhat if one man registered St. Paul's, it would not be л piracy by another to produce Westminster Abbey, because the two things, when they come to be examined, are intrinsically distinct. The eye says these two things are not the same; and, consequently, the one is not a piracy of the other. So again, if one man takes a particular view of Westminster Abbey, and puts it on the top of a spoon by way of ornamentation, anybody is perfectly at liberty to take a different view. He may take a different view, which is not the same; but he must not, it seems to me, go and take the same identical view."

On the point of novelty, Bowen, J., said : — "The novelty may consist in the application to the article of manufacture of a drawing or design which is taken from a source to which all the world may resort. Otherwise it would be impossible to take any natural or artistic object and to reduce it into a design applicable to an article of manufacture, without also having this con sequence following, that you could not do it at all, in the first place, unless you were to alter the design so as not to represent exactly the original; otherwise, there would be no novelty in it because, it would be said, the thing which was taken was not new. You could not take a tree and put it on a spoon, unless you drew the tree in some shape in which a tree never grew; nor an elephant, unless you drew it and carved it of a kind which had never been seen. An illustration, it seems to me, that may be taken about this, is what we all know as the Apostles' spoons. The figures of the Apostles are figures which have been embodied in sacred art for centuries, and there is nothing new in taking the figures of the Apostles; but the novelty of applying the figures of the Apostles to spoons was in contriving to design the Apostles' figures so that they should be applicable to that particular subject-matter. How does a public building differ from that? In no sense, it seems to me; and the photograph of a public building does not differ. The answer to the whole case of the appellant is that it is not the natural object which is the design; that it is not the photograph which is the design The novelty of the design consists in so con triving the copy or imitation of the figure, which itself may be common to the world, in such a manner as to render it applicable to an article of manufacture; and I think the learned judge in the court below was quite right."

CONTEMPT OF COURT. — An amusing case is Re Moseley, in the Privy Council, 68 L. T. Rep. N. s 105. In May, 1892,1116 Chief-Justice of the Bahama Islands, West Indies, addressed two letters to a news paper published at Nassau, the chief town of the colony, called the " Nassau Guardian," on questions affecting the health of the town. These letters were published in that paper. Subsequently a letter signed "Colonist," containing criticisms of the conduct of the Chief-Justice, was published in that paper. This 37

289

letter contained the following, among other satirical allusions : — "Search the annals of the bench of every country, of every age, and I defy creation to produce a more noble, more self-denying, and more virtuous exhibition of a ten der conscience than was afforded by our Chief-Justice in refusing to accept a gift of pine-apples 1 Some cynic has said, ' Every man has his price.' It is assuring to this community to know that the ' Fount of Justice ' in this colony is above the price of even one dozen pine-apples Mr. Y.'s noble words of scornful renunciation should be graven in letters of gold upon the walls of every magis terial office in this colony; then, and not till then, will sweet potatoes, pigeon peas, etc., cease to exert their bane ful influence on the administration of justice in this colony Hut should we be selfish and confine the influence of such virtue to the limited area of this colony? No. Mr. Editor, I and others cherish the hope that this beautiful incident will become historical, and the whole world be benefited by this last and greatest proof of the purity of English jus tice. Difficult as it is, Mr. Y. has mastered the problem of being great in little things. When a boy I remember reading of Judge Gascoygne and Prince Hal I can but hope the little boys of the future will read of the noble conduct of our Judge Y."

This appears to refer to a statement made by the Chief-Justice from the bench on the 26th April, 1892. in the following terms : — "A few days ago one of the men in whose favor 1 had given judgment in the case from Eleuthera, wrote to me offering a present of pine-apples. Although this was after the judgment was given, it was a very wrong thing to do. It seems possibly a trivial matter, but I view it differently. It must not be forgotten that I have by my conduct to sustain the rectitude of various resident justices, neces sarily brought into close contact with the people. It is wrong to accept any present whatever from any one who is, or who has recently been, or who is known as likely to be, a suitor in the court It is needless to say that I refused these pine-apples."

The Chief-Justice by letter requested Mr. Alfred E. Moseley, the editor of the "Nassau Guardian"(being also the proprietor and publisher), to attend at his (the Chief-Justice's) chambers on that day. Mr. Moseley attended, in accordance with the request, when the Chief-Justice required him to give » up the name of the writer of the letter signed "Colonist," and to hand over the manuscript thereof before four o'clock on that day, under peril of com mittal Mr. Moseley in the afternoon wrote to the Chief-Justice, declining to give up the name of the author, or the manuscript of the letter referred to Subsequently the Chief-Justice pronounced judg ment, sentencing Mr. Moseley to be kept in prison during the Chief-Justice's pleasure for contempt of court and of his official position, in publishing the letter, and also to pay a fine of £40 to the court, and to be imprisoned, in addition to the other imprison-