Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

Michael Heath-Caldwell M.Arch
Brisbane, Queensland
ph: 0412-78-70-74
alt: m_heath_caldwell@hotmail.com

1826 - 1827 - 1828

James Heath R.A. aged 69/70
Mary Heath (ne Phillipson) aged 69/70

George Heath aged 47/48
Anne Raymond Heath (ne Dunbar) aged 39/40

Julia Anna Heath (later Harrison) aged 19/20
John Moore Heath aged 18/19
Douglas Denon Heath aged 15/16
Dunbar Isidore Heath 11/12
Leopold G. Heath 9/10
Emma Jane Heath (later Whatman) 5/6

The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 1. James Heath A.R.A. by John Heath

Personal Sketches of His own Time (Sir Jonah Barrington) - Engraved by James Heath after John Comerford - published by Henry Colburn. Three volumes 1827-32. '

1. - Vol.I. Frontispiece: Sir Jonah Barrington - plate size 12 x 12cm. 'Engraved by James Heath from a drawing by Commerford.'

The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 1. James Heath A.R.A. by John Heath
Personal Sketches of His own Time (Sir Jonah Barrington) - Engraved by James Heath after John Comerford - published by Henry Colburn. Three volumes 1827-32. '

1. - Vol.I. Frontispiece: Sir Jonah Barrington - plate size 12 x 12cm. 'Engraved by James Heath from a drawing by Commerford.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Heath Family Engravers - Volume 2 - Charles Heath - by John Heath

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Amulet (or Christian Literary Remembrances) (S.C.Hall.) - engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by William Baynes, F.Westley and A.H.Davis.

1. - 'Mayday in the Village.' - plate size 9 x 7cm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Forget-me-Not (Frederic Shoberl) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould and J.Porter - published by R.Ackermann

1. - Sir Roger de Coverley - plate size 9 x 6cm
2. - Love and Duty - plate size 9 x 7cm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friendship's Offering (T.K.Hervey) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after J.M.Wright - published by Lupton Relfe - Published as an 'Annual' between 1824 and 1844 inclusive. Charles Heath only contributed plates to the 1827 edition

1. - Frontispiece: 'The Bower' - plate size 9 x 7cm.
2. - 'Coquetry, Gravity and Gaiety.' -

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Literary Souvenir (Alaric Watts) - engraved by Charles Heath after H.Howard R.A. - published by Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green.

1. - Frontispiece: Girl in a Florentine costume of AD 1500. - plate size 9 x 7cm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essay on Truth (James Beattie) - Two plate engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by J.F.Dove.

1. - Frontispiece: 'Sceptics may wrangle...' - plate size 8 x 6cm
2. - Title page: Vignette of Truth - plate size 5 x 5cm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evenings at Home (Dr.Aitken and Mrs Barbauld) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by J.F.Dove

1. - Frontispiece: And looking up...'- plate size 8 x 6cm
2. - Tile Page: 'The solitary hastened...' plate size 6 x 6cm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homer's Iliad (Pope's translation) - Engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by G.B.Whittaker, G.Routledge

1. - Frontispiece: 'When like the morning mist...' - plate size 8 x 6cm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horace (translated by Philip Francis) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by J.F.Dove.

1. - Frontispiece: 'Beneath the rising sun...' - plate size 8 x 6cm
2. - Title page: 'But beneath the mantling vine...' - plates size 6 x 6cm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dramas and Poems (Hannah More) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by J.F.Dove

1. - Frontispiece: 'He flied to where ...' - plate size 8 x 6cm
2. - Title page: 'With what angel sweetness....'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rasselas and Dinarbas (Samuel Johnson) - Two plates engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by J.F.Dove

1. - Frontispiece: 'Dinarbas, pieced with wounds...' - plate size 7 x 6cm.
2. - Title page: 'In the morning as I was sitting on the grass...'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate print - engraved by Charles Heath after Henry Corbould - published by James Robins.

1. - 'Love's Lesson.' - plate size 12 x 10cm. 'Publ. 1 Jan. 1827'

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate print - engraved by Charles Heath after Sir Joshua Reynolds P.R.A. - published by R.Jennings. - Fagan maintain that this print was the work of two of Charles Heath's distinguished pupils, J.H.Watt and G.Doo

1. - Puck - plate size 36 x 27cm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate print - engraved by Charles Heath after G.S.Newton - published by Charles Heath, 6 Seymour Place, and Robert Jennings, Poultry.

1. - The Lover's Quarrel' - plate size 28 x 22cm.

Monday 12 February 1827
Fleming's British Farmers' Chronicle

Insolvent Debtors' Court - Tuesday
Singular Plea of Wager at Law
John Gascoyne, late of Tutbury, in the county of Stafford, licensed victualler was opposed by Mr.Pollock for Mr.Samuel Allen Wheeler, a win-merchant upon a debt of £16/. and costs of action brought for the recovery of the same.

Edward Roe, clerk to Messrs.Tooke and Carr of Gray's Inn, the agents to Mr.Burnish, an attorney at Birmingham produced the proceedings in the action "Wheeler v Gascoyne." It appeared by these documents that the Hilary vacation the plaintiff issued a Staffordshire latitat against the defendant (the present insolvent) whereupon he was arrested, the bail was given to the Sheriff in the usual way. In the following Easter Term special bail was put in and in the same term the plaintiff declares, upon which the defendant put in the following singular plea: - After the usual preamble it ran verbatim thus - "And the said defendant in his proper person comes and defends the wrong and injury, and says that he does not owe the said plaintiff the said several sums of money in the said declaration mentioned or any of them, or any part thereof in manner and form as the plaintiff has above complained against him; and this he the said defendant is ready to verify in proof, however the Court of our Lord the King before the King now here shall consider."

It was intimated to the Court that this plea was intended to be conformable with an obsolete defence termed "wager of law."

Mr.Heath said that Mr.Chitty ought to be here to explain it.

The Chief Commissioner (alluding we suppose to Abraham Thornton's case of wager of battle) replied that Mr.Chitty had been employed in a memorable case of wager in connexion with the same county (Stafford)

The witness (Roe) proceeded to state the stages of the action subsequent to the plea which, it appears was abandoned, in consequence of the plaintiff being informed that the insolvent intended to apply for relief to this Court.

The Chief Commissioner said that the sum was very trifling and the Court would not be warranted upon that ground alone to remand the insolvent.

The Attorney's Clerk said that the plea put in was a complete puzzler to the gentlemen learned in the law.

Owing to a matter unconnected with the opposition, upon application of his counsel (Mr.Heath) the insolvent's case was ordered to stand adjourned to a future day.

2 March 1827
The Heath Family Engravers 1779-1878, Volume 3. by John Heath

Letter - George Cook to Wiliam Miller

"... You ask me about Charles Heath's application to you. His work will be a magnificent one, and I really think you should be quite safe with him . . . " (he goes on to abuse Turner)

[Miller was a pupil of Cooke's firm 1819-1821, and the work to be engraved was evidently the "Picturesque Views of England and Wales"]

Sunday 15 July 1827
Weekly Times (London)

Prints. - Just published by R.Jennings, 2 Poultry
The Lovers' Quarrel. - A highly-finished Line Engravings of the celebrated Picture of The Lover's Quarrel, by G.S.Newton Esq., engraved by Charles Heath (size of Print, 11 by 9 inches). Prints, £1.1s. - Proofs, on French paper, £1.11s.6d - Proofs on India paper, £2.2s - Proofs on India before the letters, £3.3s.

Puck - A highly-finished Line Engraving of the celebrated Picture of Puck, vide "Midsummer Night's Dream," by Sir Joshua Reynolds, engraved by Charles Heath, (size of Print, 14 by 11 inches) - Prints, 14s. - Proofs, on French paper,£1.1s - Proofs, on India Paper, £1. 11.6d - Proofs on India before the letters, £2.2s.

The Heath Family Engravers - Volume 3 - by John Heath
May 1827

(Morning Chronicle?)

The celebrated picture of Lovers Quarrels by Newton, engraved some time since in one of the annual Christmas presents, has again proved a subject for the engraver, Mr.Charles Heath, who deservedly rank among the most eminent of our engravers in line - an art, which his father and himself have brought to such perfection as far to excel all the productions of the continent - has just published a large print from this painting. There are some parts, particularly the face of the lady, and the whole figure of the lover, which are quite splendid, and the print altogether is an admirable work of art.

Wednesday 1 August 1827
Sun (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court
Violent Fracas Between two Barristers.
About half-past four o'clock, when the Court was about to rise, Mr.Heath, who had divested himself of his professional habiliments, addressed a few words, in a low tone, to the Commissioner, and then resumed his seat amongst the Cousel.

Mr.Woodroffe now, with indications of considerable excitement, complained of what he termed a personal insult offered to him in the face of the Court.

Mr.Heath denied that he had been guilty of any thing insulting, either in his language or conduct.

Mr.Woodroffe observed, that he had observed the significant glances which Mr.Heath had exchanged with the Court, and as he passed him he (Mr.Heath) had muttered that he had no objection to other persons doing his business.

Mr.Heath declared that he had done nothing more than to express to the Court his anxiety to be present at a motion for making a rule absolute in which he had been concerned, but which it appeared had since got into other hands.

Mr.Woodroffe - If you are attending on a motion, then, why do you not appear in your wig and gown, and not in that truckling manner?

Mr.Heath to the Court - Is this language to be endured, Sir? Would any man entitled to the name of a Gentleman, be guilty of such conduct, or can he be called a Gentleman who is capable of it?

The Commissioner expressed his disapprobation of the tone adopted.

Mr.Heath protested, that his reason for wishing to be present at the motion, was to preserve himself from the falsehoods which he understood had been uttered behind his back on a former occasion. He had obtained the rule, and was ready to make it absolute; but it had been got out of his hands fraudulently, on pretence of consulting the party. If any man said that he had refused to make it absolute, he said that which was false.

Mr.Woodroffe - I was informed that you had refused.

Mr.Heath - You before asserted, it as on your own knowledge. I repeat that, whoever says it, says what is false. It was natural that I should wish to be present, lest the statement should be repeated.

Mr.Woodroffe - Your clerk is always in Court, purveying for briefs like a jackal.

Mr.Heath (to the Court.) - Did you ever hear such blackguardism, Sir - such perfect blackguardism?>

The Court vainly essayed to allay the storm.

Mr.Woodroffe - The treatment which the juniors have received from that man is intolerable.

A Gentleman, the only remaining Counsel in Court, declared that towards him as a junior, Mr.Heath's conduct had always been marked by courtesy.

Mr.Woodroffe reiterated his complaint of Mr.Heath's behaviour, and said, there was a person in Court who could testify to Mr.Heath's refusal to proceed with the rule.

A man to whom the Learned Gentleman appealed now stepped forward, and declared that such was the fact, and characterized Mr.Heath's conduct as shuffling and disgraceful.

Mr.Heath again appealed to the Court for protection against the clan. They were all alike.

Mr.Woodroffe was proceeding to express himself with considerable impetuosity, when the Commissioner said to him - "Pray do not compel the Court to interpose its coercive authority. Depend upon it, it has the power."

Mr.Woodroffe - Oh, Sir, it never will do so without hearing both sides.

Here the scene ended, and the Court shortly after rose.

Wednesday 1 August 1827
Morning Herald (London)

Insolvent Debtors' Court
Violent Fracas between two Barristers.
About half past four o'clock, when the Court was about to rise, Mr.Heath, who had divested himself of his professional habiliments, addressed a few words, in a low tone, to the Commissioner, and then resumed his seat amongst the Counsel.

Mr.Woodroffe now, with indications of considerable excitement, complained of what he termed a personal insult offered to him in the face of the Court.

The Commissioner (Harris), expressed his regret to have observed of late manifestations of acerbity and unpleasant feeling, which he had heretofore abstained from noticing, in the hope that they would be quickly replaced by more cordial symptoms. Any indulgence of feelings of animosity must not only be painful to Gentlemen themselves, but was disrespectful to the Court. He begged to know what cause existed on the present occasion for a departure from the temper and calmness which ought to characterise all the proceedings of the Court.

Mr.Woodroffe stated, that he conceived Mr.Heath's manner to have been intentionally offensive, and his expressions insulting to him.

Mr. Heath denied that he had been guilty of anything insulting, either in his language or conduct, and appealed to Mr.Cooke for the truth of this disclaimer.

Mr.Cooke said - "If I am appealed to, I must certainly say that the insult, if any, was quite the other way?"

Mr.Woodroffe observed, that he had observed the significant glances which Mr.Heath had exchanged with the Court, and as he passed him he (Mr.Heath) had muttered that he had no objection to other persons doing his business.

Mr.Heath declared that he had done nothing more than to express to the Court his anxiety to be present at a motion for making a rule absolute in which he had been concerned, but which it appeared had since got into other hands.

Mr.Woodroffe - "If you are attending on a motion, then, why do you not appear in wig and gown, and not in that truckling manner?"

Mr.Heath (to the Court) - "Is this language to be endured Sir? Would any man, entitled to the name of a Gentleman, be guilty of such conduct, or can he be called a Gentleman who is capable of it?"

The Commissioner expressed his disappointment of the tone adopted.

Mr.Heath protested, that his reason for wishing to be present at the motion was, to preserve himself from the falsehoods which he understood had been uttered behind his back on a former occasion. He had obtained the rule, and was ready to make it absolute; but it had been got out of his hands fraudulently, on pretence of consulting the party. If any man said that he had refused to make it absolute, he said that which was false."

Mr.Woodroffe - "I was informed that you had refused."

Mr.Heath - "You before asserted it as on your own knowledge. I repeat that, whoever says it, says what is false. It was natural that I should wish to be present, lest the statement should be repeated."

Mr.Woodroffe - "Your clerk is always in Court, purveying for briefs like a jackal."

Mr.Heath (to the Court) - "Did you ever hear such blackguardism, Sir - such perfect blackguardism?"

The Court vainly essayed to allay the storm.

Mr.Woodroffe - "The treatment which the juniors have received from that man is intolerable."

Mr.Cooke here protested. When he was a junior he had received none but the most gentlemanly treatment from his Learned Friend (Mr.Heath).

Another Gentleman, the only remaining Counsel in Court, also declared that towards him as a junior, Mr.Heath's conduct had always been marked by courtesy and gentlemanly breeding.

Mr.Woofroffe reiterated his complaint of Mr.Heath's behaviour as overbearing.

Mr.Heath again denied that he had refused to make the rule absolute. It had, quite contrary to the practice of the Bar, been taken out of his hands, and was now to be made absolute without any notice or communication to him. No other Gentleman at the Bar would be capable of such a proceeding. Mr.Barry had refused to lend himself to it, and all his Learned Friends had also disclaimed so to disgrace themselves.

Mr.Woodroffe said that there was a person in Court who could testify to Mr.Heath's refusal to proceed with the rule.

A man to whom the Learned Gentleman appealed now stepped forward, and declared that such was the fact, and characterized Mr.Heath's conduct as shuffling and disgraceful.

Mr.Heath again appealed to the Court for protection against this clan. They were all alike. The person, whoever he was, that had been called in aid, had no knowledge whatever of the transaction. He had not been present at any part of it.

Mr.Woodroffe was proceeding to express himself with considerable impetuosity, when the Commissioner said to him - "Pray, Sir, are you now addressing the Court?" (Mr.Woodroffe had remained seated.)

Mr.Woodroffe - "I am here, Sir, attending upon a motion."

The Commissioner (to Mr.Woodroffe) - Pray do not compel the Court to interpose its coercive authority. Depend upon it, it has the power.

Mr.Woodroffe - "Oh, Sir, it never will do so without hearing both sides."

Here the scene ended, and the Court shortly afterwards rose.

Friday 21 September 1827
London Packet and New Lloyd's Evening Post.

Insolvent Debtors' Court
Lionel Prager Goldsmid Esq., who was before the court on the 18th ult., was brought up from the Fleet prison for rehearing.

At the original investigation the insolvent was opposed by Merrs.Barry and Bodkin, on behalf of a variety of creditors, and the case then was inquired into at unusual length. At the original hearing it was arranged that the insolvent should be remanded sine die, to perfect his services of notice upon his creditors.

Mr.Pollock, who had not been previously retained in the case, addressed the court, and said he understood that a question had arisen at the last hearing relative to the removal of the insolvent from the Fleet prison to Maidstone gaol, and from the latter prison to his former residence in the Fleet. The court, then, as he (Mr.Pollock) had been informed, were of opinion that the insolvent was not removed by his own request, or at his own instance, and therefore that part of the case was then dismissed. The learned gentleman then entered into a detail of circumstances which he considered would be sufficient to remove the prior impression of the court, because he was informed that the habeas corpus was issued at the instance of the petitioner. - - -

Mr.Pollock intimated that there were parties, if they were present, who could prove that the insolvent was instrumental in his own removal; and if that fact was established, then he was incapable of taking his discharge, because he had acted contrary to one of the clauses of the Act.

Mr.Heath protested against the reasoning of his learned friend, "but (added he with emphasis) if he can bring forward a charge of fraud or concealment of property, I am ready to hear him, and meet the accusation." He (Mr.Heath) regretted that after the long investigation which had taken place, his learned friend should attempt to commence the inquiry de novo.

Mr.Pollock said that he had a duty to perform, and he had no regret, except that he should be interrupted by his learned friend.

The chief commissioner said that it was competent for learned gentlemen to state their ground of objections and then the court could decide whether they were tenable or otherwise.

Mr.Heath - I have no objection to my learned friend stating that the preliminary question ought not to be a matter or re-inquiry.

Mr.Cook (on the same side) said, that as they were not a variance as to the technicalities connected with the with the inquiry, he would submit to the court that its established rules ought not to be infringed upon by the introduction of matter upon which the court had already decided. Supposing the previous statement had been untrue, the court was vested with the power to revoke the discharge; but if new matter was to be received from time to time, then a prisoner might have no other prospect than a perpetual durance.

The chief commissioner said that he should show great disrespect to the bar, if he did not hear any statement gentlemen had to urge; but after all, it remained with the court to say whether the arguments were proper or not.

Mr.Pollock said that some of the parties who could show that he had ground for his argument, had been subpoenaed, but he was informed that some of them refused to attend; and as he should call them, if they did not answer, the court could deal with them at it thought proper.

Mr.James Graham Lewis, clerk to the solicitors for the insolvent, was interrogated at great length relative to a conversation which passed in the open street, between him and Mr.Hayward, as to the writ of habeas corpus; but the witness, fearful of betraying confidential communications, declined answering, unless the court compelled him to do so.

The court said, that if the conversation passed between Mr.Hayward and Mr.Lewis, as Mr.Lewis simply, then the testimony required ought to be given; but if it passed to Mr.Lewis as the clerk of Messrs.Shearman and Freemank, in a confidential way, it ought not to be received.

Mr.Pollock - May I not ask the witness what he said himself to induce a reply from Mr.Hayward?

Court - I think not.

Mr.Heath - Whatever Mr.Lewis heard, he heard from an adverse party, and ought he to give that testimony against the client of his employers? - - -

continues - - -

The court then ordered Mr.Goldsmid to come up for his discharge so soon as he should be able to perfect his schedule.

Saturday 13 October 1827
London Courier and Evening Gazette

The Keepsake
The Keepsake for1828, to be published, November 1, will contain Eighteen Line Engravings, from Paintings by the most distinguished Artists of the day. The Engravings will be much larger, and more highly finished, than any ever yet produced in volumes of a similar nature; and, independence of their interest, will rank among the most splendid specimens of the Graphic Art.

In the Literary Department will be found Contributions from the Pens of the most talented Writers in this country. The whole of the subjects are selected by Mr.Charles Heath, and are executed by the following eminent Engravers:-

Subjects From a Painting by Engraved by
Selina Sir T.Lawrence P.R.A.    Charles Heath
The Lady's Dream T.Stothard R.A.    Ditto
The Gardens of Boccacio Ditto Ditto
Hylas H.Howard R.A. Ditto
The Rivals R.Smirke R.A. William Finden
The Hebrew Melody R.Westall R.A. Charles Rolls
Rebecca, from Ivanhoe C.R.Leslie R.A. Charles Heath
Louis XIV. the Madille La Valliere A.Chalon R.A.      Ditto
Florence J.M.W.Turner R.A. E.Goodall
The Gored Huntsman A.Cooper R.A. William Finden
Sadak in search of the Waters of Oblivion J.Martin E.Roberts
The Inconstant F.P.Stephanoff Charles Heath
The Ghost Laid ditto E.Portbury
The False One H.Corbould Ditto
The Peasant Girl J.Christall Charles Heath
Adelaide, a Dancing Girl J.M.Wright Ditto
Music's Mishap Ditto E.Goodyear
A Vignette Title H.Corbould Charles Heath

The Book will be delivered in crimson silk, price One Guinea. Only 250 Copes will be taken off on a royal 8vo. paper, with India proof impressions of the plates, price £2.12s.6d.; and for those every application will be necessary.

London: Published by Hurst, Chance, and Co.65, St.Paul's Churchyard; and R.Jennings, Poultry

Sunday 14 October 1827
John Bull

The Keepsake for 1828 to be published November 1st, will contain Eighteen Line Engravings, from Paintings by the most distinguished Artists of the day. The Engravings will be much larger, and more highly finished, than any ever yet produced in volumes of a similar nature, and independent of their interest, will rank among the most splendid Specimens of the Graphic Art. In the Literary Department will be found Contributions from the Pens of the most talented Writers of this country. The whole of the subjects are selected by Mr.Charles Heath, and are executed by the following eminent Engravers:

Subjects From a Painting by Engraved by

Selina Sir T.Lawrence P.R.A. Charles Heath
The Lady's Dream T.Stothard R.A. Charles Heath
The Gardens of Boccaccio Ditto Charles Heath
Hyias H.Howard R.A. Charles Heath
The Rivals R.Smirke R.A. William Findon
The Hebrew Melody R.Westall R.A. Charles Rolls
Rebecca, from Ivanhoe C.R.Lestie R.A. Charles Heath
Louis XIV, and Made la Vallier A.Chalon R.A. Ditto
Florence J.M.W.Turner R.A. E.Goodhall
The Gored Huntsman A.Cooper R.A. William Finden
Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion J.Martin R.Roberts
The Inconstant F.P.Stephanoff Charles Heath
The Ghost Laird Ditto E.Portbury
The False One H.Corbould Ditto
The Peasant Girl J.Christall Charles Heath
Adelaide, a Dancing Girl J.M.Wright Ditto
Music's Mishap Ditto F.Goodyear
A Vignette Title H.Corbould Charles Heath

The book will be delivered in crimson silk, price One Guinea.

Only 250 copies will be taken off on a royal 8vo. paper, with India proof impressions of the plates, price 2/.12s.6d.; and for those early application will be necessary.

London: Hurst, Chance, and Co. 65 St.Paul's Churchyard and R.Jonings, Poultry

Friday 26 October 1827
London Courier & Evening Gazette

Court of Requests.
A case of no small importance to families and to the character of this Court in its extensive influence over the lower orders was tried at Kingsgate Street on Thursday.

Martha Merrit, a servant, summoned her master, Mr.Williams, for her full wages, he having deducted one guinea on the ground of her leaving his service before the expiration of a month, an agreement existing of "a month's warning, or a month's wages."

The plaintiff urged, first, that she had given warning on account of the defendant's using certain specified terms of abuse; secondly, that she had then remained a fortnight, rather than by going subject the family to inconvenience; and thirdly, that she at length left the house upon the consent of the defendant, conveyed to her by his daughter, and upon the expressed consent of his sister, her mistress. - - --

At the breaking up of the Court the defendant stated that a warrant had been served upon him to pay the amount of the verdict. He wished to move to set aside that verdict, on the ground of the misdirection of the Judge to the Jury.

Mr.Dubois - by the Act of Parliament our decision admits of no re-consideration.

Defendant - For which reason you ought to be more cautious in your decisions.

Mr.Dubois - We never rescind or reconsider a verdict given.

Defendant - I beg your pardon, Sir; I know to the contrary. Some years ago, a case of wages was given against me. I exposed the case in the Times, Morning Chronicle, and other newspapers, and I personally laid charges against yourself before the County Clerk, Mr.Heath, who so far protected me, that the Court has never demanded of me the amount of your judgment, but has paid the defendant at its own loss.

Mr.Dubois - I see no reason, in the present circumstances for disturbing the verdict.
Defendant - Nor did you in the case I have just cited; yet my complaints against you procured me redress.

Mr.Dubois - I left the case to the Jury.

Defendant - But the Jury, instead of consisting of twelve, is reduced, by the arbitrary practice of the Court, to three persons. They are chosen out of an extremely low and illiterate class, and stand much in need of the direction of the Judge; and it is on the ground of your misdirection that I move for a new trial.

A Juryman - We are very much obliged to you, Mr., for the compliment you have paid us.

Defendant - You richly deserve. Mr.Dubois, your dicision at this moment amounts to petitio pincipii; and its effect is, to screen yourself from the charges which I intend to move against you. When can I lay my complaint before the County Clerk?

Mr.Dubois - I don't know when he will be here. You will find him in the Insolvent Court.
Defendant - I know nothing of Mr.Heath in the Insolvent Court. I know him only as County Clerk,and it is openly in the County Court that I expect he will receive the motion I have to make.
Mr.Dubois - Mr.Heath is out of town.

Defendant - But when will he be in town; for the warrant is peremptory on my paying the money on Wednesday next?

Mr.Dubois - He will be in town probably next week.

Defendant - Then I expect your warrant to be stayed, until Mr.Heath performs his public duty in hearing my complaint against you as his deputy.

No answer was returned, and the defendant withdrew.

Thursday 29 November 1827
Globe

Vice-Chancellor's Court - Nov.28
Murray v. the Assignees of Heath
This case, which has been so often before the public by the reports of this Court, and the report of an issue lately tried in the Court of Common Pleas, was brought on again today.

Mr.Heald, for the defendants, moved that the injunction, which the plaintiff had obtained, to restrain the defendants from selling certain copper-plate engravings, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff, might be dissolved.

The learned counsel said, he founded his motion on the verdict which had been delivered in the Court of Common Pleas, in a trial directed by the late Vice-Chancellor. The postea would be produced, by which it would be seen that the jury had decided, that according to the custom of the trade, an engraver had a right to retain, for his own use and benefit, eight impressions of any picture he might engrave. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the injunction ought to be dissolved.

Sir C.Weatherell, for the plaintiff, was surprised that his learned friend had not stated some grounds for, or adduced some argument in support of, his application. In this case Mr.Murray had filed a bill against the assignees of Mr.Heath, an engraver, who had had the misfortune to become a bankrupt, to restrain them from selling certain impressions of a copper-plate engraving, which, together with the original pictures, were the property of Mr.Murray.

The plaintiff had given them notice that the property they proposed to sell was his; but the defendants replied, that by the custom of the trade they had a right to retain a certain number of impressions. What number had they the right to retain? This was not told. Several persons had made affidavits on the subject, but none of them agreed. Some said an engraver had a right to retain eight; some said ten; others, nine or ten; and others, not more than twelve.

These gentlemen appeared, if he might be allowed the illustration, to have answered the question by throwing the dice - very common mode of fixing upon a number where a doubt existed, and when it was not to be fixed by other means of any thing like certainty. In a word, these gentlemen seemed to know nothing about the matter, and according to them the number of impressions that an engraver might retain, vibrated, floated, and oscillated between one and twelve. Then again, there arose the question - what was the engraver to do with them when he had retained them? This was a very important question - what was the engraver to do with them when he had retained them?

This was a very important question. If he was only to keep them in his own portfolio for his own use, or the use of his pupils - for show only, or as a kind of souvenir of his past labours, that was one thing. If however, he was to sell them, to dispose of and make money by them, the case was very different.

The plates to works, particularly to works of science, were frequently extremely valuable, and such a right as this vested in an engraver might be the ruin both of the author and of the publisher of some particular works. ln a case in which he recollected that he had the honour of arguing - it was respecting Dr.Sibthorp's Flora - it was proved, that if all the copies of the work which the acts relating to copyrights disposed of were claimed, it would take away all the profits of the work. It was in this view of the case that an issue had been directed, the professed object of which was to determine, first, if an engraver had a right to retain any, and what number of impressions; and secondly, if he had a right to retain, whether he had a right to sell them.

Now the Jury had returned a verdict that he had a right to retain eight impressions for his own use and benefit; but to have the right of retaining for one's own use and benefit, and to have the right to sell, were rights totally different and distinct. The Jury could never have intended them to be synonymous, and he was perfectly convinced, that if the Jury had had, as they ought to have had, to try the question respecting the right to sell, they would have decided that an engraver had no such right.

Mr.Heald said that his clients never intended to try any such question. The question respecting the right to see did not come before the jury; but if it had, he had no doubt his clients would have had a verdict.

Mr. Serjeant Edward Lawes (who was with Sir C.Wetherell) said, that to try, he had objected to the Master who drew up the issue, that he had not mentioned selling in that issue, but the Master was of opinion that the words "to retain for his own use and benefit" would include the power to sell.

The Vice-Chancellor said, he must see the order of the court which directed the issue.

On the order being produced,

His Honour said, it appeared that an application had been made to the Court to direct an issue in these terms. Then followed certain terms; and afterwards the order of the Court, directing several issues, in one of which were the words "to take for himself, to sell, mortgage, or dispose of," and in another "to convert and dispose of at his own free will and pleasure;" and afterwards the order directed that it should be referred to the Master to settle the terms of the issue.

Mr.Serjeant Lawes repeated his former observation respecting what had passed before the Master.

The Vice-Chancellor said the question was, whether an issue had been tried, and whether the finding on that trial gave sufficient information as to the power to sell. He should prefer hearing Mr.Heald make out that the finding had settled that question, to any other mode of arguing the case.

Mr.Heald thought there could be no doubt about his client's right to sell. Whether an engraver had or had not that right was not the question. The question was whether the assignees of a bankrupt had the right, and that he thought perfectly indisputable.

The assignees had found these impressions among the bankrupt's property, and as the verdict of a jury had determined the bankrupt 's right to retain, there could be no doubt that the assignees had a right to sell that which the bankrupt had a right to retain.

As to what took place before the Master, that had nothing to do with the matter. His clients had nothing to do with what the Master said, or what the other side had thought proper to do - It was certainly a little too much when they came into Court with a postea in their favour, for the other side to turn round and say - "Ah! but the Master told us such and such words were equivalent to the word sell. We were deceived by the Master." This was the language of Mr.Serjeant Lawes; and what had his clients to do with, or what other answer was it necessary to return to such an excuse but this - "The Master gave you bad advice, and you were foolish enough to take it; and having taken that, you must take the consequence?"

The simple question before the jury was, the right to retain for his own use and benefit; the jury had no right to, and did not, as would appear by the postea, decide anything else.

Mr.Justice Gaselee did, indeed, after the jury had returned their verdict, ask them if they thought the man had a right to sell them, as well as to retain them; but that was no part of the real question they were called upon to try, and what right the learned Judge had, or for what purpose he did ask the jury any thing about selling, was not for him to determine. Perhaps Mr.Justice Gaselee wished to become a purchaser, and therefore asked the question for his own private information and guidance.

The Vice-Chancellor thought the injunction ought not to be dissolved. One object of the issue was, of course, to determine the right to retain, because that was a preliminary step; but then the main intention of the issue was to determine whether a man had a right to convert to his own use and to dispose of at his own will and pleasure the property in dispute. That question had not come before the jury, and consequently the cause remained precisely in the same situation in which it was before the issue was directed.

Mr.Heald submitted to the Court that a new issue ought to be directed, if the Court thought the cause of the same situation now as it was before the expense of trying this issue had been incurred. Surely the Court must do something more in the matter, if it thought that the verdict of the jury ought to uphold the injunction.

The Vice-Chancellor intimated that he was of the same opinion with Mr.Heald.

Sir C.Wetherell said it was the fault of the other side in opposing before the Master the insertion of the words "to sell" in the issue.

Mr.Heald said that was not in evidence.

The Vice Chancellor said the Master had certainly miscarried in the way in which he had drawn up the issue. He therefore thought there ought to be another issue.

After some discussion as to the irregularity of mentioning it.

Mr.Serjeant Lawes was allowed to inform the Court, that Mr.Justice Gaselee asked the jury respecting the right to sell.

Mr.Serjeant Andrews (who was with Mr.Heald), after protesting against the irregularity of introducing this fact, which was not in evidence, and declaring that he should not have touched upon it if it had not been for what Mr.Serjeant Lawes had stated, but then something else also occurred. When the learned Judge was requested to ask another question of the jury, he refused, and said expressly, that "he was afraid he had done wrong in doing what he had done."

After a long conversation among the Counsel, principally on the subject of costs, which the Court intimated its intention of reserving until a new issue had been tried.

The Vice-Chancellor said he would frame a new order for an issue, and hand it over to both parties.

Thursday 13 December 1827
Morning Herald (London)

Died -
On the 10th inst. Isabel, youngest daughter of Charles Heath Esq., of Seymour Place, aged 21 months.

Friday 14 December 1827
Charles Heath, 6 Seymour Place, Euston Square, London, to Dawson Turner

My Dear Sir,
I have the pleasure of presenting you with this Letter a large and small Paper copy of the "Keepsake" which I hope you approve. The success if beyond my most sanguine expectation, my Publishers cannot set them fast enough. The large paper [copies] are at a very large Premium selling for 5 guineas each, the small paper has sold already ten thousand and I must reprint.

I regret to inform you that we are under deep affliction at this moment for the loss of our little daughter [Isabel] nearly two years old, who was quite a pet and the darling of her Mother and any one who knew her. This is a great drawback on the satisfaction we should otherwise feel on the success of the Keepsake.

Knowing your kind feelings towards me I venture to ask if in a short time you would cash me a Bill of my Publishers which I shall receive on account of the work - independent of the Book I have sold by Mr.Jennings [? Turner's Picturesque Views of England and Wales.] Nearly all the Proofs taken separately and sold at 2, 3 and 4 Guineas at set. Mr.Jennings has opened an Account at the Bank - and I have security from him for the payment of his Bills. Messrs.Hurst Chance are of course above suspicion. I will thank you to let me know the names of the 14 Proofs I took with me to Yarmouth and I will instantly forward the remainder to complete the set.

With best respects,
I remain dear Sir,
Charles Heath

Saturday 22 December 1827
Staffordshire Advertiser

It is said that upwards of £30,000 have been expended this year by the booksellers upon their annuals. The Keepsake alone, in which the engravings by Charles Heath are decidedly superior to any book prints ever seen, cost Hurst, Chance and Co. £6,000.

Forget me Not, the sale of which is prodigious, not only in this country, but in Germany, cost Ackermann nearly as much. The Souvenir was got up at a great expense. The Bijou, in which appear the interesting letter from Sir Walter Scott to Sir Adam Ferguson, and an engraving of Sir Walter and his family, from a painting by Wilkie, cost £3,000. The Christmas Box, a most appropriate name, as it is intended for children, although quite unassuming, is got up at a great expense. In fact, all the Annuals are highly creditable to the talents and taste of the country.

1828