The Express.
London, England, 1863-06-30 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

EQUITY COURT.
(Before VitiorChaneellor Wood.)
MUIR s. LA3T.
This suit was instituted for the purpose of restraining to.
publication of two dramas, called Aurora 'lord and Leap
Ardley's Secret, founded upon the novels of those names.
Thy plaintiff, as the publisher of the novels, complained
of the dramas as an infringement of his copyright. 4:
defendant, as the proprietor of the dramas, twisted
the defendant had brought to the composition of thy
pieces such an amount of skill and original incidents u to
mks them new works which the law would protect. Toe
facts as to the similarity of the works, shortly stated,
were these : —The incidents of the two novels
are in all material points identical, is they commence with
bigamy sod they culminate with murder, and it is in to.
leading up from the one " sensation " to the other that the
interest of the book rests. In the plays the same incidecte
are produced, treated in the same manlier, and, improving
the occasions, lead up to the same edifying result.
Sensational incident naturally begets sensational conversolion,
and of this there is a large quantity in each tale, and of the
large quantity a considerable amount is bodily lifted into
the plays. In this process the " descriptive " of the novel
becomes" stage directions " of the oley —the uonsersatiou
of the one, the dialogue of the other the
plays haring the &chant/Age over the tales that
the horrors are thrust into one-fifth part of the
bulk. The dramas, however, °octal° additional matter of
the comic underplot schoolsdapted for working in the iron.
bees of an ordinarily constituted dramatic troop. Itappeaued
in evidence that copies of the plays to the value of but
few shillinp over two pounds been sold.
Mr. Molt, Mr. Martindale, Mr. (Afford, and Mr. Kay
were in the case.

said that, beyond a doubt, the mere
reading of an author's work, or even the mere delivery of it
by actors, wee a thing which, as the law stood, presuming
there wan no drama, having copyright as such, could not be
interfered with by this court. But, it • man gave
readings of an author and distributed copies of that
author's work to the persons attaadihg the vvudijf,
the latter portion of such proceeding was • matter cl
amounting to en infringement of copyright, end as clearly
enabling the court to interfere. Now what had taken
place in this case came very close to the case last supposed.
For the purpose of public representation the defendant had
made a sort of abridgment of the main incident+ of the
! plaintiff's tales, and bad incorporated • large amount
of his actual dialogue and words. It had been said that this
was within the law which allowed a fair abridgment of an
author's work to be published by another person. Now,
upon whatever basis that law might rat, clearly
this was not a case within it. It was at all
times very difficult to say how far se author
might go in making his abridgment or et what point
the court would interfere ; but it ought certainly to move
when, as here, one-fourth of the plays at the taut were
ipMmima verbs of the novel, and the plot in each was almost
identical. It had been said in argument that it would
be • novelty to interfere in cannot this kind—that the prat.
tics was neither new nor newly complained of, and •
had been reed from one of Mr. Dickens' s works, in +=l:
put into the mouth of one of one of his characten a
strong denunciation of those who " adapted" an author's
ideas. But the mare acquiescence of a wrong mild not
make • right, and it might be—the learned judge did sot
wish to say anything ungallant in a case where, as here, the
author was a lady—but he must say that he felt it might well
be that the distinguished authors to whom reference
had bees made found that the greater genius mani.
fasted in their works was a better protection for
them than soy court of law could be. Another
referent)e had been made to the practice which
Shakapere adopted of taking him plots from Wm current is
hie day. But the Vice-Chancellor thought that the ex.
ample of him who, in his own wo ds,
r
e to airy nothing'
A local habitation and a name,
could hardly be pleaded on behalf of an author who took
the very words of the tale he was adapting for his use. Under
all the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to have the
• _ .