The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

_THE : EXPRESS,

- -ILain intentgente,--

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH—YerruDAT.
MIITTPSO IN 14.03.-111ffrooa Tina CAMPSIII, MO. JPINICII lI.A7Ta•
Sao, Ms. James Commas.. Jars Ms. James YAM
SIMMS MID ANOTUE/1 P. MAILITAT.— WAIIIIANTT OP
TITLII TO COPTILISIMT.

This nano was insameneed es; Wednesday last. The
*nada were the publishers of the o Parlour Library ;"
the dohndeat was the son end executor of Captain
the notralist. The plaintiffs had applied to 11,
In the eoppright of Captain Marryat's wink esßfo
Adventures el' Koons* Violet." The WSW
this *Wish* was sot produced; but on*, let
1838, the handout wens to the plaint!. said, "
skill bu
.v,ery happy to treat he the sopyright •Illiariear
Violet.' An offer wee then made by the *MS ; sad
en the 21m1 ihn him** mob esis, and
"You mole lei on oar ari* nee the ex-
clusive right of the adventures ee IL Violet
in the "Terloar Uhrary, ' which offer I *sashed, sad
wrote yo to that ANL I ponies but few of Us copy-
rights H
of Captain iliatryat's mitt works, awl nuty
them have already *roared in elm* publieolinh Iwe
let you know in aiw days whet copyrights lis rionies
la the meantime, I shall be glad to know whether I*
calved m letter." The bargain was aßerwusi inin
pleted. The plaintiffs paid the 501.; and the hianheit
gave a receipt in the following form .—" ROSSIMMI imam&
Simms SW., for permission to publish Cap&
week, The Adventure* of Moos. Violet,' far such
as the copyright shall endure, such right to be exam**
their own Ise the period of ten years." Attar the songh-
Son of this contract the plaintiffs premed le pueoline the
work, and incurred some expense to so dein, when *ay
received *dee from Mr. Bentley that the copyright had
been sold te him in Captain Marryat's lifetime, in common
with wand other of his works, for the sum of 3001. This
sale Ma piece under an agreement, which had never been
so as to pass a legal right in the works, but the
;0= been paid. No registration of the cop ht had
bees made at Stationers'-hall and it was admitted that the
poem* dehridant was entirely ignorant of the sale to Mr.
Bentley, and had immediately, upon hearing of it, offered
to return the 601., but the plaintiffs objected to receiving
this, and brought the present action to recover compensa-
tion in damages, upon the ground that the contract by the
defendant amounted to a warranty of title. The action was
turned into a special case. The questions for the opinion of
the court being—first, whether the documents in which the
contract was contained amounted to an express warranty
of title, if nut, whether from the sale of such a chattel an
implied contract of warranty could be inferred, and whether
Mr. Bentley had such an equitable title in the copyright as
would enable him to stop the plaintiff from continuing the
publication.
Mr. Hugh Hill, for the plaintiffs, now contended that the
letters amounted to an express warranty of tits. They
*shred to sell the absolute right of publication for 10
yews, but if that were not so, they showed a contract for
the sale of a specific chattel from which a warranty would
be implied ; but the previous sale to Mr. Bentley gave him
such an equitable title as the Court of Chancery would pro-
tect, and this court would take notice of what the doctnnea
of that court were.
Mr. Serjt. Channel', contra, contended that there was no
warranty here, express or ins lied. The letters amounted
to a mere license to publish. It was necessary also to re-
member that the defendant only acted as executor and
could only be taken to warrant that he had done nothing to
encumber. It was like the case of sale by a sheriff or pawn-
broker. It was moreover an executed, and not an executing
contract, and that distinction will be found to run through
all the cases upon the subject. The parties here had com-
pleted all that they contemplated. And the case differed
from those of sale of an estate, or anything of that sort,
which was a contract to do something at a future time.
Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that the plaintiff
was entitled to judgment. It was not necessary to consider
how the case would have stood between these parties if
there had been only an implied warranty, upon which sub-
ject the law not quite in a satisfactory state. The case in
the Exchequer (" Morley T. Attenborough"), in which he
(Lord Campbell) quite agreed, related only to the sale of
unredeemed pledges by a pawnbroker, in which it was held
that there was no warranty implied. But beyond that a
great many questions were left open ; because, though the
doctrine " caveat emptor " applied in general to the sale of
a personal chattel, there were many exceptions which nar-
rowed down the rule, for instance, goods sold in a shop, in
which case the shopkeeper was considered to warrant that
the purchaser would have a good title to keep the goods
purchased, and cases of executory contracts. But here
there is an express contract, a positive direct warranty by
the language of the letters. The contract must be deduced
from the correspondence and the receipt given by the de-
fendant, and he (Lord Campbell) could have no doubt
that the defendant, in ignorance of what his father
had done, and acting in a perfectly honourable
manner, had contracted to sell the exclusive right
of publishing this work. [His lordship then resulthe letters
and receipt before set out.] By these documents the de-
fendant sold the exclusive right to publish fur ten years.
Then did they thereby become entitled to that exclusive
right? It appeared that Mr. Bentley had an equitable in-
terest in the copyright of this work. It had been mooted
during the argument, whether this court could take notice
of what the doctrines of the Court of Equity were; but he'
hotline doubt that the court would take notice not only of
that, but of every branch of the municipal law as adminis-
tered in this country, as well as of the ecclesiastical law.
Under these circumstances' he had no doubt that a Court
ritemiNty would have interposed to protect the right of
Orbs) had an equitable title to the copyright, and
ha notice had not been attended to, might have
Ns ,s was done in the cue of " Sweet r. Cator,"
and have eeelsiiped the plaintiffs. He thought, therefore,
that the p were entitled to judgment.
Tits Qerre te 'Tug LANCASHIRS AND YORISIIIRE
RAILWAY COMPANY. —.MANDAMUS TO COMPLITE •
RAILWAY.
Mr. Hugh Hill moved for a rule calling upon the defend-
ants to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not
issue commanding them to complete the branch railway
from Halifax to Leeds. It was one of the branches which
the company were empowered to make under an act upon
which the court had already granted one rule.
Lord Campbell asked when the powers of the act would
expire ?
Mr. Hugh Hill said some question might arise whether
they expired next August or would continue till August,
18.11. Application had been made to the company, who
had answered on the previous day that they did not intend'
to proceed with the line, having been restricted hem ee
doing by the shareholder.—Rule nisi granted.
THE CHELSEA WATERWORKS COMPANY O. ROWLEY.
This was a special case arising out of an action brought
by the company against the defendant, as the represents.
the of the Land-tax Commissioner., for seizing certain goods
and chattels as a distress for land tax. The question; he
the *aka of the court being whether the company were
amsembie to the land-tax in the parishes of St. John's and
et. Maremst's, Westminster, they having no property in
those wishes, except certain mains and pipes laid down
under esoMin highways ; their reservoir and works being
all la the parish of St. Ocorgc's Hanover-square. They
we cleared as the occupiers of fend, and the question was
la/AM they could be considered as persons " having and
bolding land " within the meaning of the Land-tax Act,
38 G. 111., c. 5, en. 4.
Mr. Crowder, Q.C. (Mr. Brett with hint), on behalf of
the company, admitted that they were liable to be rated to
the poor-rate under the statute of Elizabeth.
Mr. Wiles, for the defendant, maintained that there was
no distinction between the liability of the company to the
poor-rate and to the land tax. The company did occupy
land, for they deprived the owner of the land when thifr
pipes were of the exclusive poesestion which he wouldother-
wise have had.
The court took time to consider its judgment.
Lord Campbell gave notice that the court would proceed
this day (Saturday) with the new trial paper, after the
crown paper was disposed of.