Browse Documents By...
Original Language...
Documents For...
Browse Commentaries By...
Browse Referred Persons By...
Burnet's Bill of Complaint and Chetwood's Answer, The National Archives (1721)
Source: The National Archives: c.11 242/45
Citation:
Burnet's Bill of Complaint and Chetwood's Answer, The National Archives (1721), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
No Translation available.
Jur 19o die Octobris 1721o
R Holford The Joynt and several Demurrer and Answer of William Chetwood Richard Franklin Two of the
Defendents to the Bill of Complaint of George Burnet Complainant.Collins per dec: Cheveley
These Defendants by protestation not Confessing or acknowledging all or any the matter of the said Complainants Bill of Complaint to be
true in such manner and sort as the same are therein and thereby set forth and declared say that they are advised that the Complainants said
Bill of Complaint is insufficient and to which by the Rules and Justice of this Honourable Court they these Defendents or either of them
ought not to be compelled to make or give any answer and whereas the Complainant doth by his Bill of Complaint pretend that the right of a
certain Book entitled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ sive doctrina antiqua de rerum Originibus which was written and published by Dr. Thomas
Burnet Master of the Charterhouse in his life time and also of another certain book entituled De statu mortuorum et resurgentium written by
the said Dr. Thomas Burnet are vested in the Complainant as sole Executor of the last Will and Testament of the said Dr. Thomas Burnet
and doth thereby claim the sole right of Printing and Publishing the said Books and that no one hath any right to print or publish the same
without the leave and consent of the Complainant: The Complainant doth likewise by his Bill Suggest that notwithstanding the
Complainants said right the Defendant William Chetwood in Confederacy with the other Defendants & other Booksellers hath without the
consent and leave of the Complainant procured the said first mentioned Book Entituled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ to be translated
and printed and is ready to publish the same and that the Defendants design to translate and print the said other Book De statu mortuorum et
resurgentium The scope therefore of the Complainants Bill being to have a discovery who are the Translators and Printers of the said first
mentioned Book and whether the said other book be now in Press As to so much of the said Bill as prays a discovery whether the said
Defendants did employ any and what persons to translate the said latin book stiled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ into English and the names and
places of abode of all such persons as were employed and whether the same was done with the knowledge of the Complainant and whether
they or any of them did publish an Advertisment in the publick Newspaper signifying that the said Translation would shortly be published
and whether all the said Book was translated and printed before the Defendants were served with the Process of this Honourable Court and
how much thereof remained to be translated and printed and what persons were or are imployed in printing the same and how many sheets
thereof hath been translated or printed since the Defendants or any of them were served with the said Process and that the Defendants may
be restrained by the Injunction of this Honourable Court from the printing and Publishing any Translations of the said Book and that all such
sheets thereof as are printed may be delivered to the Complainant to be damaskt and made wast paper of These Defendants do Demur and
for cause of Demurrer thereunto these Defendants say that it appeares of the Compainants own shewing that the said Book stiled
Archæologiæ Philosphiæ suggested by the Complainants Bill to be printed by these Defendants is not the same Book whereof the
Complainants Testator Dr. Thomas Burnet was Authour or Proprietor but a translation of the said Book into English And whereas the
Complainant founds his right on a statute made in the Eighth year of the Reign of her late Majesty Queen Anne entituled An Act for the
Encouragement of learning by vesting the Copies of printed Books in the Authors or Purchasors of such Copies during the times therein
mentioned, Yet the said Statute doth no where prohibit or forbid the translating of such Books into any other Language and the printing
and publishing such Translation the which therefore not being the same Book with that whereof the Complainants Testator was Author or
Proprietor the Complainant is no way interested therein nor is the printing or publishing thereof any way injurious to the Complainants
pretended right nor is the Complainant entitled to pray any discovery relating thereto, but if the said Translation be understood to be the
same book within the intent and meaning of the said Statute these Defendants for further cause of Demurrer to so much of the Complainants
said Bill as seeks a discovery whether the Defendants employed any to translate the said Book and who they were and how much is
Translated thereof and whether the Defendants or any of them did publish any Advertisement that the said Book would shortly be published
Say that the Complainant is in no way concerned therein inasmuch as the same is no way illegal nor contrary to the Complainants pretended
right nor has the Complainant shewed any Equity to entitle him to the discovery thereof and to so much of the Complainants said Bill as
seeks a discovery who are employed in the printing thereof or how many sheets of the said book are printed off and that the sheets of the
said book that are printed thereof may be delivered to the Complainant to be Damaskt and made wast paper These Defendants for further
cause of Demurrer shew that they these Defendants are advised they cannot make the said discovery or deliver up the said Sheets if any such
there were without making themselves lyable to the penalties and forfeitures mentioned in the said Statute of the Eighth of Queen Anne and
that as by the constant rules of this Court no Defendant is obliged to Answer to any matter the Confession whereof may Subject him to any
forfeiture or penalty at Law and though the Complainant does in his Bill offer to waive any advantage of the pecuniary penalties in the said
Act yet these Defendants are advised that they are not thereby indemnifyed inasmuch as one Moity of the said Forfeitures and penalties is
forfeited to the Crown and so not in the Complainants power to wave the same wherefore and for divers other apparent errors and mistakes
imperfections and uncertainties in the said Bill of Complaint contained these Defendants do Demur and abide in Law and humbly demand
the Judgment of this Honourable Court whether they shall be compelled to make or give any further or other Answer thereunto than as
hereafter they have Answered. And these Defendants for Answer to all the rest and residue of the Bill of Complaint not herein before
Demurred unto do [sev]erally say and deny that they or any of these Defendants have procured any Copy of the said Book entituled De statu
mortuorum et resurgentium in the Bill mentioned nor is the said Book or any Copy thereof in the Custody or power of these Defendants or
any of them nor do they or any of them know that the said Book hath been put to the press or is now printing or translating into English and
these Defendants to joyntly and severally Deny all and all manner of unlawfull combination or Confederacy to the prejudice and injury of
the Complainant Without that that any other matter or thing in the Complainants Bill already material for these Defendants to make Answer
unto and not herein or hereby sufficiently answered unto confessed avoided traversed or denyed in true all which they these Defendants are
ready to aver maintain and prove as this Honourable Court shall award and therefore pray to be hence dismissed with
their Costs and Charges in that behalf most wrongfully and unjustly sustained.
Cheveley
Sollom Emilyn
Source: The National Archives: c.11 242/45
Citation:
Burnet's Bill of Complaint and Chetwood's Answer, The National Archives (1721), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Back | Record | Images | No Commentaries
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf
No Translation available.
Jur 19o die Octobris 1721o
R Holford The Joynt and several Demurrer and Answer of William Chetwood Richard Franklin Two of the
Defendents to the Bill of Complaint of George Burnet Complainant.Collins per dec: Cheveley
These Defendants by protestation not Confessing or acknowledging all or any the matter of the said Complainants Bill of Complaint to be
true in such manner and sort as the same are therein and thereby set forth and declared say that they are advised that the Complainants said
Bill of Complaint is insufficient and to which by the Rules and Justice of this Honourable Court they these Defendents or either of them
ought not to be compelled to make or give any answer and whereas the Complainant doth by his Bill of Complaint pretend that the right of a
certain Book entitled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ sive doctrina antiqua de rerum Originibus which was written and published by Dr. Thomas
Burnet Master of the Charterhouse in his life time and also of another certain book entituled De statu mortuorum et resurgentium written by
the said Dr. Thomas Burnet are vested in the Complainant as sole Executor of the last Will and Testament of the said Dr. Thomas Burnet
and doth thereby claim the sole right of Printing and Publishing the said Books and that no one hath any right to print or publish the same
without the leave and consent of the Complainant: The Complainant doth likewise by his Bill Suggest that notwithstanding the
Complainants said right the Defendant William Chetwood in Confederacy with the other Defendants & other Booksellers hath without the
consent and leave of the Complainant procured the said first mentioned Book Entituled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ to be translated
and printed and is ready to publish the same and that the Defendants design to translate and print the said other Book De statu mortuorum et
resurgentium The scope therefore of the Complainants Bill being to have a discovery who are the Translators and Printers of the said first
mentioned Book and whether the said other book be now in Press As to so much of the said Bill as prays a discovery whether the said
Defendants did employ any and what persons to translate the said latin book stiled Archæologiæ Philosphiæ into English and the names and
places of abode of all such persons as were employed and whether the same was done with the knowledge of the Complainant and whether
they or any of them did publish an Advertisment in the publick Newspaper signifying that the said Translation would shortly be published
and whether all the said Book was translated and printed before the Defendants were served with the Process of this Honourable Court and
how much thereof remained to be translated and printed and what persons were or are imployed in printing the same and how many sheets
thereof hath been translated or printed since the Defendants or any of them were served with the said Process and that the Defendants may
be restrained by the Injunction of this Honourable Court from the printing and Publishing any Translations of the said Book and that all such
sheets thereof as are printed may be delivered to the Complainant to be damaskt and made wast paper of These Defendants do Demur and
for cause of Demurrer thereunto these Defendants say that it appeares of the Compainants own shewing that the said Book stiled
Archæologiæ Philosphiæ suggested by the Complainants Bill to be printed by these Defendants is not the same Book whereof the
Complainants Testator Dr. Thomas Burnet was Authour or Proprietor but a translation of the said Book into English And whereas the
Complainant founds his right on a statute made in the Eighth year of the Reign of her late Majesty Queen Anne entituled An Act for the
Encouragement of learning by vesting the Copies of printed Books in the Authors or Purchasors of such Copies during the times therein
mentioned, Yet the said Statute doth no where prohibit or forbid the translating of such Books into any other Language and the printing
and publishing such Translation the which therefore not being the same Book with that whereof the Complainants Testator was Author or
Proprietor the Complainant is no way interested therein nor is the printing or publishing thereof any way injurious to the Complainants
pretended right nor is the Complainant entitled to pray any discovery relating thereto, but if the said Translation be understood to be the
same book within the intent and meaning of the said Statute these Defendants for further cause of Demurrer to so much of the Complainants
said Bill as seeks a discovery whether the Defendants employed any to translate the said Book and who they were and how much is
Translated thereof and whether the Defendants or any of them did publish any Advertisement that the said Book would shortly be published
Say that the Complainant is in no way concerned therein inasmuch as the same is no way illegal nor contrary to the Complainants pretended
right nor has the Complainant shewed any Equity to entitle him to the discovery thereof and to so much of the Complainants said Bill as
seeks a discovery who are employed in the printing thereof or how many sheets of the said book are printed off and that the sheets of the
said book that are printed thereof may be delivered to the Complainant to be Damaskt and made wast paper These Defendants for further
cause of Demurrer shew that they these Defendants are advised they cannot make the said discovery or deliver up the said Sheets if any such
there were without making themselves lyable to the penalties and forfeitures mentioned in the said Statute of the Eighth of Queen Anne and
that as by the constant rules of this Court no Defendant is obliged to Answer to any matter the Confession whereof may Subject him to any
forfeiture or penalty at Law and though the Complainant does in his Bill offer to waive any advantage of the pecuniary penalties in the said
Act yet these Defendants are advised that they are not thereby indemnifyed inasmuch as one Moity of the said Forfeitures and penalties is
forfeited to the Crown and so not in the Complainants power to wave the same wherefore and for divers other apparent errors and mistakes
imperfections and uncertainties in the said Bill of Complaint contained these Defendants do Demur and abide in Law and humbly demand
the Judgment of this Honourable Court whether they shall be compelled to make or give any further or other Answer thereunto than as
hereafter they have Answered. And these Defendants for Answer to all the rest and residue of the Bill of Complaint not herein before
Demurred unto do [sev]erally say and deny that they or any of these Defendants have procured any Copy of the said Book entituled De statu
mortuorum et resurgentium in the Bill mentioned nor is the said Book or any Copy thereof in the Custody or power of these Defendants or
any of them nor do they or any of them know that the said Book hath been put to the press or is now printing or translating into English and
these Defendants to joyntly and severally Deny all and all manner of unlawfull combination or Confederacy to the prejudice and injury of
the Complainant Without that that any other matter or thing in the Complainants Bill already material for these Defendants to make Answer
unto and not herein or hereby sufficiently answered unto confessed avoided traversed or denyed in true all which they these Defendants are
ready to aver maintain and prove as this Honourable Court shall award and therefore pray to be hence dismissed with
their Costs and Charges in that behalf most wrongfully and unjustly sustained.
Cheveley
Sollom Emilyn