Let us first consider where the writer of the Short Story stands before the Law. What is her Legal Position as to (a) the length, (b) the plot of a short story which she may have contracted to deliver on a certain date to a particular publisher, editor, agent, or creditor? The following two decisions apply:—
Mabworthy
v. Crawley.
Mabworthy v. Crawley.—Mrs. Mabworthy brought an action against Crawley & Co. to recover payment due for a short story ordered of her by defendant. Defendant pleaded lack of specific performance, as story dealt with gradual change of spiritual outlook, during forty years, of maiden lady inhabiting Ealing. It was held by Mr. Justice Pake that the subject so treated was not of “ordinary length.” Judgment for the defendant. Mrs. Mabworthy, prompted by her sex, fortune, and solicitor to appeal, the matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, which decided that the word “ordinary” was equivalent to the word “reasonable.” Judgment for the defendant, with costs. Mrs. Mabworthy, at the instigation of the Devil, sold a reversion and carried the matter to the House of Lords, where it was laid down that “a Short Story should be of such length as would be found tolerable by any man of ordinary firmness and courage.” Judgment for the defendant.
The next case is the case of—
Gibson v.
Acle.
Gibson v. Acle.—In this case, Mr. Phillip Gibson, the well-known publisher, brought an action for the recovery of a sum of £3. 10s., advanced to Miss Acle, of “The Wolfcote,” Croydon, in consideration of her contracting to supply a short story, with regard to the manuscript of which he maintained, upon receiving it, that (1) it was not a story, and (2) it was not technically “short,” as it filled but eighteen lines in the very large type known as grand pica. Three very important points were decided in this case; for the Judge (Mr. Justice Veale, brother of Lord Burpham) maintained, with sturdy common sense, that if a publisher bought a manuscript, no matter what, so long as it did not offend common morals or the public security of the realm, he was bound to “print, comfort, cherish, defend, enforce, push, maintain, advertize, circulate, and make public the same”; and he was supported in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved in his decision that:
First: the word “short” was plainly the more applicable the less lengthy were the matter delivered: and
Secondly: the word “story” would hold as a definition for any concoction of words whatsoever, of which it could be proved that it was built up of separate sentences, such sentences each to consist of at least one predicate and one verb, real or imaginary.
Both these decisions are quite recent, and may be regarded as the present state of the law on the matter.
Once the legal position of the author is grasped, it is necessary to acquire the five simple rules which govern the Short Story.