Transcription of affidavit from William Ashbee (for "Morris v. Ashbee"), 6 May 1868, before George White. Source: Chancery files, 6 May 1868, ref: C 31/2233/1300; The National Archives of the UK (TNA), held off-site from Kew. Transcribed by Liz Evans, 29/10/2015, from photographic images held by Tony Proctor (images nos. 384-399) ================================================================ [page 1, image 384] __In Chancery__ __1868 M 81__ __Between__ John Stuart Crosbie Morris - - - Plaintiff _____ and _____ William Ashbee and Lewis Simonson - - - Defendants I William Ashbee of No. 190 Grays Inn Road in the county of Middlesex Publisher one of the Defendants above named make oath and say as follows. - 1 I have read the Plaintiff's bill filed in this cause and also his Affidavit made therein and sworn and filed on the 21st day of April 1868 and the Affidavit of George Powis also made therein and sworn and filed on the 20th day of the same month - 2 I entered into the Plaintiff's service in 1865 as a Clerk and Canvasser first as Clerk and afterwards as Canvasser and I was employed by him in the compilation and preparation of materials for "the Business Directory" in the Plaintiff's Bill mentioned and also a Book called "the Imperial Directory" which was published and sold by the Plaintiff but the further publication of which was discontinued in consequence of an Injunction awarded by this Honorable Court in a Cause of Kelly v Morris - 3 It was the practice of the Plaintiff to obtain and cut out from all available sources such as Newspapers guide Books directories and other similar publications the names addresses and details of trade of persons and also advertizements and other printed matter which had been published at the expense and for the benefit of Advertisers and the parts cut out as aforesaid were by the Plaintiff employed in the compilation of each successive edition of the said Directory including the edition for the year 1867 The matter so collected was cut out and gummed or posted upon slips 6th May 1868 (68) White Friday [?] No 1300 [page 2,image 385] of paper upon which was printed the name of the Plaintiff's Directory. These slips are technically called forms These forms were delivered to sorters who arranged them with reference to the routes in which persons who were employed as Canvassers were to make enquiries and solicit custom as hereinafter mentioned - 4 From my personal knowledge and from reliable information derived by me from various persons engaged in a similar business and which I believe to be true I say this is the general practice adopted in the compilation of all works of a similar description - 5 After the forms were sorted as aforesaid they were delivered out to different Canvassers whose business was to go from house to house throughout the route confided to them and correct errors in the slips and forms and solicit orders and advertisements for the Plaintiff's Directory in the manner described in the14th paragraph in the said Bill Many of the said slips had been cut out of the Post Office London Directory published by Kelly and Company These printed slips were afterwards sent to the Printer and were used as copy for the work published by the Plaintiff - 6 The idea of the Merchants ^and^ Manufacturers Pocket Directory of London published by the Defendants in the bill and hereinafter called the Defendants Directory was suggested by a small volume published at New York a copy of which is produced to me and marked A The Defendants directory was not brought out or devised in opposition to or as a piracy of any part of the said business Directory of the Plaintiff - 7 The Defendants Directory is an original compilation made bona fide from the same or the like Materials and in the same manner as the said Business Directory but no piracy of that work has been made - [page 3,image 386] 8 I became a Canvasser for the Plaintiff and I have canvassed with and obtained cash and orders for the insertion of the slips hereinbefore mentioned in the Plaintiff's Directory and I have obtained orders and received money on behalf of the Plaintiff for the insertion in the Directory of Advertisements with copy cut from other Books which copy has been used as copy for the Plaintiffs Directory 9 On the close of the Canvass in each year I returned to the Plaintiffs Office as reader and Examiner of Printers proofs and during my said employment as reader and Examiner I have frequently seen in the Printers copy returned from them the same matter as appeared in the slips hereinbefore mentioned and compared such copy with the proof sheets of the Plaintiffs Directory to appear in the following year - In the spring of 1867 the Plaintiff being desirous to obtain a larger number of advertisements and extra lines increased the number of cuttings from a larger number of sources and for this purpose he obtained one copy of the Post Office Directory two copies of Williams Manufacturers Directory two copies of the trade marks Directory two copies of the West London Directory two copies of Smiths Railway Guide and Directory two copies of The Stationer and fancy trades register two copies of The Engineer two copies of the Engineering two copies of The Builder two copies of the Building News two copies of The Times and Telegraph and a variety of other publications and amongst other Johnsons Paris Exhibition Catalogue from which he cut the whole of the English section into slips - The whole or greater part of these cuttings were gummed or pasted on to forms and were delivered to the Plaintiffs Canvassers as hereinbefore mentioned for the purpose of getting up his Directory - 10 The term "extra lines" hereinbefore mentioned is a phrase [page 4,image 387] applied when a person adds to his name more than one trade or details beyond the one mention of his trade or business in which case he pays to the publisher a sum agreed on between them per line 11 In the following instance amongst several other similar instances I canvassed for the Plaintiff Messieurs Heintzmann and Rochussen formerly of No 9 Friday Street London on making enquiries I discovered they had removed to No 23 Abchurch Lane I went there and saw one of the firm and produced to him 23 separate cuttings pasted on the Plaintiff's directory forms containing the names and particulars of as many Foreign Firms for whom they were agents - These cuttings were taken from 23 distinct places in Kellys Post Office Directory for 1866 - I told this to the member of the firm whom I saw and suggested to him the propriety of his having similar insertions in the Plaintiffs work to which he assented and he then and there paid ^to^ me on behalf of the Plaintiff 23s/- for such insertions which I afterwards paid to the Plaintiff who gave me great credit for obtaining the order and the whole of the matter contained in the last mentioned cuttings was inserted in the Plaintiffs Directory for 1867 and is also retained in the edition of ^his^ Directory for the present year 12 Previously to 1867 I entertained an idea that I could publish a Directory on a principle different from that of the Plaintiffs Book - On the return of the Defendant Lewis Simonson from the country delivery of the Business Directory 1867 in a conversation with him I informed him of my idea of bringing out a separate Directory on my own plan the said defendant being a clever Canvasser I considered he would be the most useful man I could get to join me The said Defendant on the subject being mentioned did not approve of the plan - [page 5,image 388] considering it of much too large a nature to be successful the first year but he produced a small pocket Directory of New York which he stated and which I therefore believed he brought from that place I believe he had canvassed for the information contained therein This is the book or volume referred to in the 6th paragraph of this my affidavit - The Defendant Lewis Simonson suggested that a book for London in the same style would be approved by the Public and pay exceedingly well and could be worked by six people - This is the origin of the Merchants and Manufacturers Pocket Directory of London in which I and said Lewis Simonson and Edward Dutton and Alexander ^Francis^ Lamb in the Plaintiffs bill mentioned are interested as partners and which in the pleadings are called the Defendants Directory which was published on the 8th day of January 1867 [?] and registered on the 26th day of April 1867 13 I being the manager of the business relating to the publication of the Defendants Directory gave to each of our Canvassers instructions as to the mode of working on our Directory - These instructions were to take a copy of a specimen of the size and style of the book which is now produced and shewn to me and marked A 1 [?] and on the arrival of each Canvasser at the street proposed to be canvassed he was to refer to the bundle of cuttings and forms and if he found no address for the first house he was to call if such house of business appeared to be of the kind which we proposed to insert in our work namely that of a Merchant Manufacturer or Importer to shew the said specimen Book and a prospectus and solicit orders for insertions and advertisements also orders ^for^ the Book to be supplied when published - In all cases the Canvassers were instructed to solicit from the person canvassed a Business Card Bill Head or Manuscript particulars of his name address and occupation and to suggest the value of matter from the Card or Bill head being inserted in the Directory in [page 6,image 389] the manner described by our specimen page - If no order or money was paid for the insertion a manuscript copy of the Card or Bill head or manuscript description was to be made out on our printed forms The same mode was to be pursued at every house in each particular street On finishing the street or batch of streets all papers with Cards Bill heads or manuscript descriptions were to be given in to the office The Canvassers pursued and observed the instructions given to them so far as regarded houses for which the Canvassers had papers cut from other publications they were to call and verify and if possible to obtain the necessary sum required for printing the same in capitals and extra lines which is now the general custom to insert in all kinds of Directories 14 The Plaintiffs Directory contains about 2,500 pages and is a large Octavo volume but the Directory published by me and my partners contains about 450 pages and ^is^ a pocket Book of small size with Almanac postal information and Diary and is not calculated to deceive the public or lead them to believe it to be the Plaintiffs work - The entries in Plaintiffs book represent all classes of businesses in London and its vicinity whilst our Book shews only the principal Merchants and wholesale Traders and is published for the purpose of supplying to persons in the provinces and the colonies information respecting such Houses with which they might be able to transact large business - The sale of our Book was not pushed in London as I and my Partners considered that it was and in fact it is essentially a country book - It was sold by us to those persons who subscribed their names for copies and only about thirty were sold to nonsubscribers The Book was not distributed amongst the Trade Booksellers for sale in the ordinary way with other publications but there has been a gratuitous [page 7,image 390] circulation in America In paragraph 14 of the Plaintiffs Bill the Plaintiff states that the Defendants professing in their prospectus to give that information which was given by his classified Directory at less than half the cost which statement is untrue as by the Defendants prospectus now produced and shewn to me marked A 2 will appear The Plaintiff further states that he commenced shortly before June 1867 to solicit by his Customers 1s/- subscriptions for inserting the name ^in^ Capital Letters which is untrue inasmuch as the Plaintiff charged 2s/- for the name in Capitals instead of 1s/- £12 for a page advertizement instead of £8 and 2s/- more for a Book than in the preceding year 15 I admit that in compiling the Defendants Directory slips have been taken as hereinafter mentioned by the Defendant ^from^ the Plaintiffs Directory but all slips taken were taken from the edition of 1867 which was not registered till the 18th day of April namely after the publication of the Defendants Directory - 16 All the names printed in Capitals in the said Edition of the Plaintiffs Directory and all extra lines inserted therein were I believe paid for or agreed to be paid for by the persons whose names were so printed 17 The only passages taken or copied by the Defendants from the said Plaintiffs Directory are to the best of my knowledge information and belief passages that have been so paid for - 18 Save as aforesaid the Defendants did not copy or make use of the Plaintiff's Directory or any part thereof for the purposes of their Directory 19 I say in reference to paragraph 21 in Plaintiffs Bill some of the Trade or headings therein mentioned are in the Defendants Directory as they appear in the Plaintiffs Directory but others have alterations or additions which [page 8,image 391] do not appear in the Plaintiffs Directory - In 5 out of the instances mentioned in the said paragraph the headings were supplied by Manufacturers in the provinces to two of the Defendants Canvassers that is to say Corrugated Iron Manufacturers Galvanized Iron Manufacturers (which last heading was in Williams Manufacturers Directory previously to its appearing in the Plaintiffs Directory Iron Church and Chapel School House Builders Iron Telegraph Pole Manufacturers and Shipping not Ships Tackle Manufacturers I depose to the foregoing statements from a comparison of the Plaintiffs work with them In other cases in which alterations or additions have been made by the Defendants in the headings such alterations were made at the instance of the persons carrying on the trades named in the headings and such altered headings will appear on comparing the Defendants Directory with that of the Plaintiffs The heading or trade of oiled Packing Cloth Manufacturer was supplied by 3 different persons to the Defendants Canvasser - I say that in the various instances complained of by the Plaintiff in the said paragraph the matter was supplied by the Defendants Canvassers on the forms from which ^the^ Defendants Directory was printed after making personal enquiries of the Traders or Manufacturers carrying on the several trades or businesses mentioned in the said Paragraph 20 I say that I have inserted in my Directory the headings of 187 Trades and Manufactories that do not appear in the Plaintiffs Directory - The paper writing now produced and shewn to me and marked A 3 contains a list thereof - I depose to the facts contained in this paragraph from a comparison and examination of my Book with the Book of the Plaintiff [page 9,image 392 and 393] 21 I say that no name or address of any person or particulars of his trades or businesses appear in my directory other than persons who have been called upon or canvassed by me or my partners or by Canvassers employed by us and every single entry of such names addresses and particulars in my Directory was the result of particular enquiries made by me my partners or canvassers at the place or places of business of such several persons and in a great number if not the whole of the cases of personal revision by the persons themselves of the slips or forms containing such names addresses and particulars and in a great number of instances where the same was necessary or considered expedient the result of alterations made by such persons only or by me my partners or Canvassers at the time of my and their calling and canvassing them as aforesaid my knowledge of this is derived personally in all the cases in which I have personally called on such persons and in the other instances from the information received by me from my partners and Canvassers and the general revision by me of all the slips and forms from which my Directory was printed and which information I believe to be true 22 The paper now shewn to me and marked A 2 is the prospectus of the Defendants Directory and is the prospectus referred to in the paragraph 14 of the Plaintiff's Bill 23 I say as regards Messieurs Letts and Son referred to in the 16th page of the Plaintiffs Bill that they were the ^printers^ of my Book I received no instructions from them as to the insertion of their names whatever therefore appears in my book under their names was inserted by them at their own instance and without any reference to me and my firm some time before I saw Mr Thomas Letts and in a conversation with him I told [page 10,image 394] him he might insert the names of his firm in my Book as he might think fit 24 I say that as regards Messieurs Chadwick Brothers referred to in page 17 of the Plaintiffs Bill I canvassed their firm and shewed their manager four slips or forms three of which I altered at his dictation He gave me additional lines and paid me for insertions 25 I say as regards Blundell Spence and Company referred to in page 18 of the Plaintiffs Bill that they were canvassed by Edward Dutton one of my partners as he informed me and as I therefore believe he made no return but delivered me a card of the firm from which the entries in our Book were made 26 I have read the affidavit of John William Sharp made in this cause sworn the 20th and filed the 22nd day of April 1868 I say he was in my service but is now in the service of the Plaintiff - 27 I say as regards Johnson John and Sons referred to in page 8 of the Plaintiffs Bill I called at their place of business and left with their manager 7 slips or forms containing ^the^ particulars of their names and details of their trade I called the next day and by his instructions I made out 5 other headings altered 3 of the other slips according to his dictation and in his own handwriting ^he^ altered two and paid me for inserting them in my Book so revised and altered The error referred to in the Plaintiffs Bill was not noticed either by him or me 28 I say as regards Messieurs Lambert and Sons referred to in page 10 of the Plaintiffs Bill the allegations ^therein^ are not the fact I say that in the first 4 headings in the Plaintiff's Book they are printed in the Plaintiffs Book as alleged by him but in our Book they are printed as Lambert ^T^ and Sons The Plaintiff has inserted in his Book 2 addresses of the firm but in our book only one appears [page 11,image 395] and no number of the street I say that I received from my Canvasser at Walsall instructions to insert Lambert Brothers of that place and on his sending it to me he requested me to ^insert^ Messieurs Lambert of London meaning Messieurs Lambert and Sons above referred to On referring to my Manuscript ^I found^ that they had not been canvassed and from ^my^ personal knowledge of their place of business and the different trades carried on by them I wrote out manuscript copy for my printers as the same appears in my Book 29 I say as regards Messieurs Bryan John and Company referred to in page 15 of the Plaintiffs Bill that Mr John Bryan supplied too one of my Canvassers who delivered to me a manuscript made out by him (the Canvasser) in which their names were inserted under the heading of "Contractors" and under which heading they do not appear in the Plaintiffs Book I saw from the Manuscript that the firm were also described as Army Clothiers Brace and Belt Manufacturers and Curriers and I entered them in the Copy for my work under those headings accordingly I called the following day on Mr Bryan who told me he had paid my Canvasser the day previously for the insertion in my Book which I found from my Canvasser to be the fact 30 As regards Mr. Godfrey referred to page 8 of the Plaintiffs Bill I say that he was canvassed by Benjamin Bennett one of our Canvassers - The said Benjamin Bennett brought to my office the slip or form containing the particulars of address and trade of the said Mr. Godfrey and returned to me a Bundle in which was contained the slip or form relating to the said Mr. Godfrey in which was struck out the second address 30 Charles Place Hertford Road N and the paper bore marks indicating that the said Mr. Godfrey paid 1s/- for the insertion of his name in my Directory - which sum was accounted for ^to^ me by the said Benjamin Bennett - I therefore say that I believe that the said Mr. Godfrey was [page 12,image 396] canvassed in the same manner as hereinbefore mentioned with respect to my other canvassers and that the omission of the letter u in the word ^Beauvoir^ as it appears in my Directory was the consequence of neglect on the part of the said Mr. Godfrey and the said Benjamin Bennett to notice the error - From the facts stated in this paragraph I verily believe that the said Mr. Godfrey was canvassed in accordance with my Instructions to my Canvassers as hereinbefore mentioned - I have made proper enquiries to endeavour to find the said Benjamin Bennett but have been unable to do so 31 I say as regards Messiers Foulger and Sons referred to in page 9 of the Plaintiffs Bill and Messieurs Frankau and Company referred to in page 17 thereof the said John William Sharp was instructed by me to canvass them I believe he did so personally from the fact that he returned me the slips and forms ^relating^ to them and informed me that Mr. Foulger had paid him £1 for Insertions and that Messieurs Frankau had paid him 3s/- for Insertions for which sums he accounted to me I have not applied to the said John William Sharp to make an Affidavit as to the circumstances in this paragraph mentioned inasmuch as he is in the Plaintiffs employ but nevertheless I say that if he were required to depose to the fact of his having made such Enquiries as he was bound to do according to his instructions he would not deny the fact of his having made personal Enquiries of the said Messieurs Foulger and Sons and Messieurs Joseph Frankau and Company 32 As regards Mr. Alfred Ayden referred to in page 10 of the Plaintiffs Bill I say that he was as I believe personally canvassed by Robert ^Bruce^ one of my Canvassers forasmuch as he gave me 2s/- which he stated and which I therefore believe he had obtained from the said Alfred Ayden for an insertion of his [page 13,image 397] name in my Directory 33 As regards John Ewin referred to in page 15 of the Plaintiffs Bill I say I believe he was personally canvassed by the said Robert Bruce according to our general instructions to Canvassers inasmuch as the said Robert Bruce paid me 2s/- for insertion of particulars relating to the said John Ewin and gave memoranda signed by the said John Ewin as he informed me and as I therefore believe for a copy of my Book I have made proper enquiries to endeavour to find the said Robert Bruce but have been unable to do so 34 I say with respect to abbreviations and casual omissions and faults in printing and punctuation ^which^ occur in works similar to those published by the Plaintiff and myself and more especially in works confined within a small compass like mine a great deal is left to the printer In many cases the ^compositor^ in setting up the type knows that in a limited space it is a material object to make abbreviations but nevertheless in many cases occurring in my Directory the compositor has set up type with abbreviations not warranted by the copy and in other cases has put up in full words which were abbreviated in the copy and in a variety of instances has inserted marks of punctuation therein and omitted others Both in my publication and in that of the Plaintiff a great number of abbreviations and omissions occur some of which appear in his publication which do not appear in mine and so on the contrary works of the kind herein referred to are got up under great stress the object being to publish them within a given time so as to render them acceptable and useful to the public a cursory examination of the printers proofs is made in order to see that no glaring errors are made therein and in reading off the proofs there is not only not sufficient time nor is it considered necessary to correct the proofs so minutely as in works of a superior description so long as manifest errors do not appear and in reading off the proofs little or no attention is paid to the abbreviations or [page 14,image 398] marks of punctuation which has aforesaid are frequently arbitrarily made by the compositor It may have and as it would appear has happened that in adopting slips or cuttings for our forms the errors therein have been followed or perpetuated but I nevertheless say that the universal mode adopted in getting up my publication has been as far as circumstances would permit to make the entries therein as correct as possible by personal Enquiries in every instance as hereinbefore mentioned I deny that in getting up my publication I have unduly made use of the Plaintiffs book and that whatever errors or omissions have occurred in my Directory and complained of by him as in the said Bill mentioned they have been the result of accident and not of design 35 I make the several statements herein of my own personal knowledge except where the contrary appears and in the latter cases the sources of my information and grounds of my belief where I have to facts or circumstances as to my belief ^herein appear In^ the instances in which I have deposed to cuttings from books and other sources from which the cuttings were taken my knowledge has been acquired partly from seeing several of the said cuttings actually cut and partly from a comparison of the others of the said cuttings with copies of such Books Newspapers periodical publications and other similar sources from which such cuttings were taken Sworn at the Record and William Ashbee Writ Clerks Office Chancery Lane in the county of Middlesex this 6th day of May 1868 before me E Grubb [?] Filed for and on behalf of the Defendants by George White 70 Russell Square [page 15,image 399] In Chancery Morris Affidavit of V the defendant William Ashbee Ashbee Fo 66 Copy George White 70 Russell Square