“Since that period (mark this—for here the iniquity begins) the house of Curry and Co. effected sales for the purpose, I believe, of raising cash to conclude the winding-up of partnership, of 1000 copies of ‘Hinton’ at a mere minimum profit (6d, I think, per copy), and thus at one coup not only reduce my profit to a mere fraction, but seriously and gravely—as I am prepared to show—damage my character and that of my books in the London market.
“And these sales made without my consent—without even my knowledge—were in the face of a scale of profit already acknowledged by their own account furnished, and specially pledged by M’G.
“The matter ends not here, for, anxious to purchase my remaining rights,—the only obstacle to selling the sole copyrights in London,—Curry had the impudence to propose £200 for the four vols. in question, urging as a reason for my compliance his own depreciated sales, and using a threat of the damage he could effect in my reputation by continuing such a system of depreciation.
“This, if related by any less credible witness than Spencer, would scarcely be believed. But the case is so. Up to the moment Spencer had been—when able—moving in the matter; but Curry, from old experience of my capacity for being duped, declined conferring with him, and addressed to me certain letters—half flattery, half insolence—in which he alleges that M’G.‘s scale of my half profits was far too high, and that I have been overpaid! and lastly, that the depreciated sales were made by him in full right on his part.
“A case was submitted to Longfield for his opinion on this head (of which I enclose you the copy sent to me by Spencer). The last letter I received from Curry enclosed a statement of the expenses of getting up ‘Hinton,’ in which I am charged for my share of 20,000 copies—i.e., 4000 more than are sold. It also contains a request to know at what price I do value my contingent interests, as Mr Curry hopes the matter may be arranged without reference to the courts of law.
“As to the scale of half profits, C. & H. set them down as £10 per 1000 Nos.—which is just what M’Glashan [? estimated].” *
* Lever would appear to have received £1300 on account of
profits of ‘Jack Hinton.’—E. D.
To Mr Hugh Baker.
“Riedenburg, Nov. 14,1846.
“Soon after despatching my letter to you, I received the enclosed from Mr Chapman, for whose consideration and counsel I had stated the whole transaction with Curry. You will perceive that his opinion corroborates mine, and maintains my moiety of profits as fixed and unchangeable. As to his (Chapman’s) suggestion that I should ask Curry what price he lays upon his share of the copyrights, it is evidently to reduce him to the dilemma of avowing that he offered me far too little, and of impressing that he asks far too much. Will you see Curry and say that the severe illness of the children in succession has totally prevented my attending to business,—an excuse, I regret to say, not in the least fictitious?