dren eat when they are hungry, and make small meals at several intervals, than to keep them fasting till the clock strikes, and then allow them to make a large dinner at one sitting. Their digestion, is more rapid than that of adults; their activity is more constantly exerted; the demand for a supply of food is therefore quicker in their systems, and they bear-fasting worse than grown persons. If they are supplied with simple food, therefore, they should be permitted to take it whenever their inclination prompts them. In this part of the book, Dr. Struve really plays the part of Cervantes's Tirteafuera *, and we tremble lest he should become the oracle of boarding-schools. We cannot admire those Medical Puritans, who "Quarrel with mince-pyes, and disparage And blaspheme Custard through the Nose †.” We experience many surfeits on thin literary food; and we imagine that the reader will soon depart from this compliation, Conviva uti satur. ART. IX. Asthenology; or, the Art of preserving Feeble Life; and of supporting the Constitution under the Influence of Incurable Diseases. By Christian Augustus Struve, M. D. Translated from the German by William Johnston, Svo. pp. 430. 8s. Boards. Murray and Highley. 1801. we bestow a shorter notice on this publication than might have been expected from its size and subject, it must be imputed to the great importance which the author attaches to the Brunonian doctrine, though often an opponent of that' system; and which leads him into discussions totally uninteresting to readers in this country.-Respecting the scope of his book, we shall quote his own account: The f. Asthenology, in regard to its theory, and the application of it as an art to maintain feeble life, is distinguished not only from the macrobiotic art, or that of prolonging human life, of which it forms a subordinate part (asibenomacrobiotic), but also from the an tiasthenic art of healing, or asthenotherapia, which is employed in removing weakness, and restoring the lost powers and health. art of maintaining feeble life leaves to these the direct strengthening method; and has for its object merely to preserve and prolong the existence. It extends its aim farther than the direct art of healing, and is therefore active, when the common physician deserts the patient, and declares his malady to be incurable. In regard to its + Hudibras. Don Quixote. object, object, the maintaining and prolonging life in the asthenic state, it comes within the boundaries of both sciences, and endeavours to maintain feeble life, rescued from apparent death. It tries also how far it is possible to operate a direct cure in cases of asthenia; and when no radical method of cure is applicable, relieves by the pallia tive method the most urgent symptoms, and exerts itself to prolong, for a certain period, that life which it is not able to preserve. We are sorry to differ from Dr. Struve in the very com mencement of his Asthenogeny, or doctrine of feebleness: he observes, The naturalists and physicians of the present period, by their indefatigable researches, have made great progress in the discovery of that all-powerful principle, which I shall call the vital principle. This principle we know exists; but with its essence we are unacquainted.' This is so far from being an accurate statement, that it is at this moment undecided whether a vital principle exists in man, independent of mind; and if we be ignorant of its essence, we have no reason for priding ourselves on any discoveries relating to it.-The Doctor then proceeds with 'the supposition of a vital principle pervading all bodies, and producing different phænomena, according to the diversity of organization in its subjects; and he next examines the stimulants which excite this principle. Instead of the Brunonian phrase, indirect debility, this author substitutes confined activity of the vital power; with what advantage, we cannot perceive. A man set in the stocks may be said to have the activity of the vital power confined, yet he may be in no respect debilitated. We shall not attempt to follow Dr. Struve through the rest of the volume; which may be of use to German readers, but which an English student will find very unimportant, as it contains no new views of facts, nor any improvements of practice. At the same time, however, that we are compelled to speak in such terms of this work, we must do Dr. Struve the justice of adding, that it is at least free from the medical fanaticism which at present disfigures so many continental pro ductions. ART. X. Reports of Cases argued and determined in the Court of King's Bench, with Tables of the Names of Cases and principal Matters. By Edward Hyde East, Esq. of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Vol. I. containing the Cases in the Forty-first Year of George III. 1800-1801. Royal 8vo. pp. 740. 11. 35. 6d. Boards. Butterworth. 1801. T HE cases determined in the Court of King's Bench have been reported by Mr. Durnford and the author of the present present publication conjointly, from Michaelmas Term 1785 to Trinity Term 18co, both inclusive, and are comprehended in eight folio volumes, which are now universally denominated the Term Reports. Of the different parts of this work, as they appeared, we have given accounts; and in our 34th volume N.S. we expressed our regret that the profession and the public were no longer to be benefited by the exertions of Mr. Durnford in this department. Mr. East, however, notwithstanding the difficulty of the task, has now undertaken it alone and unassisted; and the volume before us, which contains the cases determined in four terms, is a proof of his diligence and at tention. As we have on former occasions expatiated at considerable length on the merits of the performance, of which the subject of this article must be considered in the light of a continuation, and as the manner of reporting in both is the same, we shall not detain our readers by any more preliminary observations: but we must in the present instance extend our customary notice of productions of this kind, by presenting to them a case which is interesting to the literary as well as to the professional man, and is connected both in subject and principle with the case of Beckford against Hood, transcribed in our 27th vol. N. S. p. 310. It was there determined that an author, whose work is pirated before the expiration of twenty-eight years from the first publication of it, may maintain an action on the case for damages against the offending party, although that work was not entered at Stationer's Hall, and was first published without the name of the author affixed. The case of Cary against Longman and Rees, B. R. E. 41 Geo. III. has decided that an action lies to recover damages for pirating the new corrections and additions to an old work. This was an action on the case for pirating a book of the plaintiff's. The first count of the declaration stated, that the plaintiff was the author of a certain book intitled, "Cary's New Itinerary, or an accurate Delineation of the great Roads both direct and cross throughout England and Wales, &c. from an actual Admeasurement made by Command of his Majesty's Postmaster-General," &c.; and that being the author of the said book within fourteen years last past he had published the same for sale, &c. That the defendants intending to deprive the plaintiff of the profit thereof, and of the benefit of his copy-right, injuriously published and exposed to sale divers copies of a certain book intitled, "A new and accurate Description of all the direct and principal Roads, &c. from a late actual Admeasurement made by Command of his Majesty's Postmaster General," &c. which same book had before that time been wrongfully and injuriously copied from the said book of the plaintiff, without his consent, &c. The second count laid it thus; great part of which said book had been before that time wrongfully and injuriously copied and pirated from the said book of the plaintiff, without his consent, &c. The third count laid, that the plaintiff was the proprietor of Cary's Itinerary, &c. The sixth count laid, that the plaintiff had the sole right of printing certain matters relating to the roads of this kingdom, &c. first published within fourteen years last past in a certain book of the plaintiff's called, &c. At the trial before Lord Kenyon at Westminster, it appeared that the original foundation of both the plaintiff's and defendants' books was a work first published in 1771, by Mr. Patterson, the copyright of which in 1788 (the author being then living) became vested in Mr. Newbery. This work had gone through several editions, the 11th of which was published in 1796. In 1797 the plaintiff was employed by the Postmaster-General to make an actual survey of the principal roads; and the book published by him with their permission contained many material corrections of and additions to the last edition of the original work by Patterson. The principal of these consisted in some corrections of distances by the actual surveys; in an admeasurement of the distances from inn to inn in the several post towns, in addition of those from one town to another; in an index to the roads more copious than the former one; in an additional number of gentlemen's seats by the road side; in a rejection of some routes, and an addition of many others. On the other hand, the work published afterwards by the defendants as the 12th edition of the original work by Patterson appeared to have been copied, nine tenths of it, verbatim from the plaintiff's improvements, and many of the alterations merely colourable. After verdict for the plaintiff, • Gibbs moved for a new trial on the ground that the stat. 8 Ann. c. 19. s. 1., granting the copy-right to authors for a certain time, only enacts, "that the author of any book and his assigns shall have the sole liberty of printing such book for 14 years," &c. And though he could not deny that the defendants had copied the alterations of and additions to the original work, introduced by the plaintiff in his Itinerary, in the same manner as he himself had copied the original work, yet he could not be considered as the author of the book within the meaning of the statute, the greater part of it having been before published by another person, and to which the plaintiff had no title. Lord Kenyon C. J. Certainly the plaintiff had no title on which he could found an action to that part of his book which he had taken from Mr. Patterson's; but it is as clear that he had a right to his own additions and alterations, many of which were very material and valuable; and the defendants are answerable at least for copying those parts in their book. That the defendants had pirated from the plaintiff's book was proved in the clearest manner at the trial; nine tenths at least of the alterations and additions were copied verbatim. The printed work itself was made use of by the defend. ants at the press, some of it clipped with scissars, with a few slips of paper containing MS. additions interspersed here and there, and some of these merely nominal and colourable. The courts of justice have been long labouring under an error, if an author have no copy right in any part of a work unless he have an exclusive right to the whole book. I remember it was thought otherwise in the case of Mr. Mason (Mason v. Murray). Several of Mr. Gray's Poems had been for many years before published, which were collected by Mr. Mason, and published with the addition of several new poems: but though he had not a property in the whole book, yet the defendant having copied the whole, the Lord Chancellor granted an injunction against him as to the publication with the additional pieces. So Lord Hardwicke in another case † granted an injunction to restrain * Qu. Lord Bathurst? the Tonson v. Walker and another, 30th April 1752, cited in Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2325. 2353. and in Tonson v. Collins, 2 Blat. 332. Vide Motte v. Falkner, Nov. 1735, before Lord Talbot, cited in 4 Burr. 2353. and in 1 Blac. Rep. 331. and Carnan v. Bowles, 2 Bro. Ch. Cas. 85. relative to the original publication in question. SAYRE and others v. MOORE, Sittings after Hil. 1785, at Guildhall, cor. Lord Mansfield C. J.-This was an action for pirating sea charts; which are protected by statute 17 Geo. 3. c. 57. The charts which had been copied were four in number, which Moore had made into one large map. It appeared in evidence that the defendant had taken the body of his publication from the work of the plaintiffs, but that he had made many alterations and improvements thereupon. It was also proved that the plaintiffs had originally been at a great expence in procuring materials for these maps. Delarochett, an eminent geogra pher and engraver, had been employed by the plaintiffs in the engrav ing of them. He said that the present charts of the plaintiffs were such an improvement on those before in use as made them an original work. Besides their having been laid down from all the charts and maps extant, they were improved by many manuscript journals and printed books and manuscript relations of travellers: he had no doubt, the materials must have cost the plaintiffs between 3ocol, and 4cool, and that the defendant's chart was taken from these of the plaintiffs with a few alterations. In answer to a question from the Court, Whether the defendant had pirated from the drawings and papers, or from the engravings? he answered, from the engravings. Winterfelt, an engraver, said he was actually employed by the defendant to take a draft of the Gulph Passage (in the West Indies) from the plaintiffs' map. Many witnesess were called on behalf of the defendant, amongst others a Mr. Stephenson and Admiral Campbell. Mr. Stephenson said he had carefully examined the two publications; that there were very important differences between them, much in favour of the defendant. That the plaintiffs' maps were founded upon no principle; neither upon the principle of Mercator, nor the plain chart, but upon a corruption of both. That near the Equator the plain chart would do very well, but that as you go further from the Equator, there you must have recourse to the Mercator. That there were 13 very |