A LOST MANUSCRIPT

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXVI, Issue 7761, 3 March 1894, Page 3

A LOST MANUSCRIPT

-..;;',. M the Magistrate's Court..yesterday, ,\} William sued James Reid, of the :"■ "*' -Thames • Adveptisek, l to Tectiver,'£s for : detained/"; :\ ;>•*-' CvMr >; llil!er.appeared for defendant, '■; ' ;;;;': ;^illiam ; V deposed; that he vf ■/vbriraght this actioixtb recover £5 in pay* ;which defendant ■ wropgfiillyv detdned, ,'The \manu> : • •,'- scripfcwas Autobiography / . o? a Private .Soldier.". Thei manuscript •jras written .by>wi&eßS, he.liaying serped '\ .;.,.. in the 35th Eegiment during the Crimean & war*,; There were about; 80 :When jj, witness asked, for the return of the , ~ . .manuscript: defendant .said ib,had-been ■ lost.;: Witness.had paid ■ £10 for writing, aboat 200 pag&s in England in 1861.;, The. lost .manuscript was , ' very.-valuable to' witness as an' heirloom, ;•■'■•■ It :took; about ;12 '-. months to write it in ' , ' his leisure. .Witness believed that if he had copied it out and sent"it. to Sydney he,wouldhavo'got£2ofprit;= . - : By.Mr-MillOT.s'-'ExtrictVfrbitihe.same /manuscript ..were published: in the ■ about, 14 years ago. About half of it was published,. andib then was stopped for some reason ov- otheiM They . were.to have published 'the Whole of it. Witness was not to get any thins; for allowing it;.tp-be published.; "Witness ■•.-. started a hand-cart about the' Very same time : as defendant,got . about November, 1892. It.was.rnet with a view to assisting witness,with the'•hand- : ■"'cart that' he gave defendant the.manus, cript v to -publish ' Witness ■ did not proffer the* manuscript. Defendant first for it near the Bank of: New "Saying will you lend me .this . , manuscript?. Have you got. it ?".., Wit'ness replied thathe had'lent it to another •person—Mr iGreenslade—and he would give it td" him- as-ioon as the " Star" people returned it., Did not lend it to the " Star" with a view of having it published. Mr Greenslade did not say he would not publish it, ; He. als6;lent it to ; Mr Heald in. ! his. private .capacity, and■ Mr OampbeN of the Wales.; inthe^DyESrisEß'Officei' Defeiidantand witness /were "not , intiraatoV Had" never soeii;. the"-manuscript since .he lent 1 it to ■". ;defendiint.; ; ; -, ' :, ; : . ; ,: :^Thiaclosed-thecasV.for plaintiff.'.. ' /v'Mr:'Mfller'-:raised ; ;ihe point; that the proprietor bnlyjco'uld be held to be liable, and not a s.ervant, and quoted authori- , ties in siiKporfc of his contention. He then called ; , , : ' G.G..Beale, telegraph operator, who! ■. deposed'that he :rebollected. seeing Mr *: Kelsall's the Crimean War," and read 4fc pretty carefully through, It'.^was , . descriptive "'of-,, the every-day life of a soldier in. the cam- , -p.aign. -The- , narrative'was' freely inter*• : . :' spersed with " sprees" It consisted of 70 orßo pages. Had it been printed he considered the pamphlet would be worth Is./ Had it been published as it stood it would not baye done plaintiff any good. By MrKelsall«lt's publication might not have: affected, the handcart, but it certainly w.ould-have reflected! upon Mr Kolsall,aa it'described him as being the .hero.of drnnken orgies. . ••; H. J Greenslade, editor of the " Star," ■•••, gave evidencß to the effect that about two years -agp hadj.been handed.-tcihimvto fi[o throughV'and see • whether.- it 'was worth publishing. He wont through .it, ,, but came to the con* clusionihat it was .unsuitable, and per• gonally raturnodit to Mr Kelaall, Ho ;*.; ■■■■■ : :-:-"' .- -

would nob have published it for £-20, especially as it would have required a cousiderablo amount of revising before it cpuld.be inserted, ■' Jas. Reid, editor of the Thames Advertiser, deposed tbafc about' the latter end of 1.892, Kelsall called at the Advertiser office, 1 and -asked witness whether he would t publish a manuscript of his (plaintiff's), giving personal remin* escences of the Crimean war, stating at the same time chat he was starting a hand-cart, and by this means he might be helped in • the business. Witness agreed to do all he could to give him a hejpihg hand, but pointed out to Kelsall ;that just then they had no space for it in consequence of the pressure, caused, by the number of advertisements in the paper.' Hbffeyerif aayoxtmcts from it were worth publishing, he' would do so later.'on. Plaintiff -then, said, " Well, then, I'll leave ib with you," Kelsall particularly', asked that his name should be mentioned as the author, as he wanted to be brought into prominence. Witness put. the manuscript .in his drawer for safety, but upon looking for it again it was missing. Received. a letter from Kelsall demanding £5 for the non-return of the manuscript, and mentioned the fact to the proprietor (Colonel Fraser), who said he would sea Kelsall and have the matter settled.. Colonel Fraser was, however, called away suddenly to Wellington, and had not yet returned.

: His "v7orahip said that plaintiff had no' legal claim upon defendant, and if ho persisted in having a judgment returned, he would give judgment in favour of defendant.. Howeverj as the manuscript was lost, Mr Kenny suggested that perhaps defendant would/give plaintiff some little ,, consideration, in consequence, whereupon Mr Miller said thflt defendant was quite willing to give Kelssll £1.. . Mr Kelsall agreed to take the £1, and His Worship then entered up judgment for £1, without costs, remarking that defendant had behaved handsomely.