atkins case pope versus curl June see Lytton v Devey l I Ch Hennessey v wright  Q b d the defendant on his answer be put in move to dissolve a injunction  against his vend a book of letter from swift pope and other see gyles v Wilcox  ante a collection of letter as well as other book be within the intention of  the that of queen whether the act for the encouragement of learning the  receiver of a letter have at most a joint property with the writer and the  possession do not give he a licence to publish a motion be make on behalf of  curl the bookseller upon his have put in his answer to dissolve a injunction  which Mr pope have obtain against his vend a book entitle letter from swift  pope and other Lord chancellor the first question be whether letter be within  the ground and intention of the statute make in the that year of queen whether  c entitle a act for the encouragement of learning by vest the copy of print  book in the author or purchaser of such copy I think it will be extreme  mischievous to make a distinction between a book of letter which come out into  the world either b the permission of the writer or the receiver of they and  any other learned work the same objection will hold against sermon which the  author may never intend shall be publish but be collect from lose paper and  bring out after his death another objection have be make by the defendant  counsel that where a man write a letter it be in the nature of a gift to the  receiver but I be of opinion that it be only a special property in the  receiver possible the property of the paper may belong to he but this do not  give a licence to any person whatsoever to publish they to the world for at  most the receiver have only a joint property with the writer the second  question be whether a book original print in Ireland be lawful prize to the  bookseller here if I shall be of that opinion it will have very pernicious  consequence for then a bookseller who have get a print copy of a book have  nothing else to do but send it over to Ireland to be print and then by pretend  to reprint it only in England will by this mean entire evadeathe act of  parliament it have be insist on by the defendant counsel that this be a sort  of work which do not come within the meaning of the act of parliament atkins  because it contain only letter on familiar subject and inquiry after the  health of friend and can proper be call a learned work it be certain that no  work have do more service to mankind than those which have appear in this  shape upon familiar subject and which perhaps be never intend to be publish  and it be this make they so valuable for I must confess for my own part that  letter which be very elaborate write and original intend for the press be  general the most insignificant and very little worth any person S read the  injunction be continue by Lord chancellor only as to those letter which be  under Mr pope name in the book and which be write by he and not as to those  which be write to he