The Express.
London, England, 1849-01-30 00:00:00

court, where things incorporeal were constantly dealt with
as property, rock as advowsons, for instance. The first
question put to the judges in " Kilter v. Taylor" wee
whether at common law the author of a book or literary
composition had the sole tight of AM printing and publish-
ing the saute for sale, are might bring an action against
those Who did to without his content? That was the
question here, and he argued it on the common law,
without reference to the set of Anne. The answer of
the judges (sight of theta) and of the Roue of Lords was
decisive of this ease, as it was of " Mellor v. Taylor:* But
supposing te ptiff net to have the right sf action, as
two of the judgeshought in the above Gag
e, still he had a
eight of property, se:cording to all the judges, except Judge
Yates ; and such • right of property that this nut would
act upon by injunction, without putting the plaintiff to his
&Vim to establish it at law. The plaintiff here had that
prima facie right of property in tko etchings ; he did not
allege any property in the catalogue or idea. of the defers.
dant, as was supposed in the argument on the other ad-.
He may have his ideas, and on the same principle the plain
tiff eosin to be secured in the property of Lis works. Ha
next referred to and stated eh* ease of the " Duke of Queens-
bore, v. Shebbeare (2 E len, 329). relating to the publics-
den of Lord Clarendon's MSS. of the " History t f the Reign
of Charles 11 ," of which a copy taken by consent of the
owner MD proposed ley the detendant for publication, but
prevented by the court, notwithstanding the consent
to take a copy. He nut referred to similar cases of
"Pope v. Curl" (2 Atk.), " 8 tutLey e. Sherwood"
(2 Meriv.tle), " Thimeon v. Stanhope" (Ambler), re-
specting the publication of Lord Chesterfield's "Letters
to his Sm," and to the rose of " f3le v Pritchard" (in
2 Swanston), "Phipps r Percival" (2 Yee. and B.), and
"Lord °reseed and Duncitn," in Ireland (2 Ball and Bratty)
In all thou, in which the property claimed by the several
plaintiffs was of a qualified nature, tar lea. obvions than the
present plaintiff's, the elan granted injunctions against the
publications by the defendants. But the ease of " Aber-
meth) v. Hutchinson," upon the amended bill (in 3 Law
Journal), was an SWIM to all the arguments for the de-
fendant in this cue, and so al was the case of " Folgbas
r.
Green" (1 Simon and S•uart). —The Solicitor-General stated
those gases from the reports above referred to, and also
Yount v. Winyatt," 2 Jacob and Welker, aed need them
to snow that the whole line of authorities were in favour of the
'Maple that every mat had a property in hi. unpublished
literary composition, Slid could have the aid of the court to
protect it against all intendtss. This principle was not invaded
by the case of "Macklin v. Riche:dam" (Ambler), al-
though inferences to that effect were drawn from it on
the other side. In further support of the principle above
asserted, he referred to " Murray v. EUiston" as the the dra-
matic representation by the latter of Lord Byron'e " Marino
Fallen; " and to the caw of " Martin tr. Wright," relating
ts the picture of Belshozsar's Feast, and the enlarged copy
by the defendant for a dioramic exhibition. The defendant
there was not entrained, hewer° his was a new work alto-
gether, pro lured in • different form from the plaintiff's pic-
ture. It, while Mr. Macaulay was writing hie " History of
England," a plasm stole into his litirary and took sketches
of his maanscripts and published them, would Mr. Macaulay
cot be entitled to an injunction to restrain the publication ?
Was not the present case as strong ? The Solicitor-G I
then noticed t cues cited en the other tide, and already men-
tioned in our former report, and attar again stating the facts
alleged by the bill and the defence to them by the defendant,
and the line of argument taken on the othsr side, he submit-
ted that the injunction should be maintained in all its inns-
grity.—Mr. Serjunt Tall meet and Mr. W. M. James were
heard on the same side, be: their 'remounts di't not differ
ma.crially from those of the Solicitor-Ooreral —Mr. Rus'ell
commenced his reply, but had not finished it •Len the court

Before the Muter of the Rolls.
Ix as Scrra.—Mortore TO DUIC [TAROS ORDER FOR
TA XAT lON.
Messrs. Turner and Modell moved in this matter to die.
charge an order of course obtained by Mr. Foley, a de-
lenient ins suit of " Clarke o. Foley." agaiust Mr. George
Smith, solicitor in the cause, fur the delivery up of his hills
of costs, and to tax certam eats in the cease which had nut
been taxed. It appeared that hr. Foley was a solicitor,
end that an arrangement had boon entered into between
him an Smith that the costs of the suit should bo
between them as between a town agent and solicitor in the
country, Mr. Smith, who acted as solicitor for sui partied,
only taking the town ag.-nt's share. The suit was a friendly
suit against Mr. Foloy as the cx^cntor and residuary 1 gates
of a decoued party for the administration of his motto ;
and Mr. Smith had rid:sired. undo the tear of
this smut, the amount of the cots and the money
payable in the snit to Foley as legatee. The object
of the petition was to sacs rain what was due to F. y tad
Smith fur costs, on the footing of the above errs: ip_ment
between them, and to have the balance in Smith's bands
due to Foley paid over to him. On the part of Smith some
dfificalty was made in giving effect to the above arrongo-
moot, on the groan-I that Foley had omitted to take out his
certiGeate fur one year during the clot:nuance of ti .a snit.
though he was a regular'y a Anitted elicitor, and bad taken
out his certificate previously to the year in question and sub-
sequently. It was also objected on Smith's behalf that,
hamog regard to the arrangement in question, a special
order ought to have been obtained. and that the common
order was irregular.—Slessra. Teed and Webs' er appeared
for Foley.—The Master of the Rolls said he would read the
affidavits before be gave his decision.

COURT OP QUEEN'S ERROL—Termini:oa.
&Mace in Banco.
ALCOCI V. ROYAL EXCHANOR Aturnaten.—MAßlNl
I NS V VANES.
Thee was an action on a policy of assurance on a ship, in
which there had been a verdict for the defendant. A rule
was suisequ-ntly obtained for a Lew trial, on the ground of
the improper rejection of evidence, of the improper admis•
sion of evidence, and that the stylist was against the weight
of the evident:ie.—Lord Denman now gave the judgment of
the court. The document said to be improperly admitted
was an origiaril statement of fee's made by a man called
&otto in Egypt. He was afterwards examined under a
commission, and referred to the statement he had before
made as the legalised copy of what ho had said under a
firmer proecediug to which statement he seid he adhcre-t.
This document was rejected at the trial; the court were of
• pi-ien teat it had bren property rtjic,:d. It was then
said that evidence as to the habitual drunkenness of the
captain had been improperly admitted. The case el:-
tended lunch on the acts of the captain, and al-
though his drunkenness had been treated in the
argument as somethilg which affected his credit only,
the court thought it must be put on a different
ground. The plaintiff's counsel armed that the evidence
was inadmissible, and that unfitness for duty on the part of
the captain, like unse.tworthinees in the ship, might be
pleaded, and that as it had not been pleaded, evidence to
prove his unfitness could not be admitted. The tout, how-
ever, could not adopt that argument The question at issue
was the proprist7 of the abandonment. If the act of aban-
donment was directed by an intelligent and imparisl mind,
it might be justified in an action where an abandonment had
taken pbice, and the question always was, what a prudent
uninsured owner would have done under he circumstances.
It was clear that the ionnilneiad the kadgmstit of the muter
of the vessel who decided on the question of abandon:ll.n.,
was properly the only subject e f consideration. Lord Ten-
terden had ezpreuly laid down that doctrine, and it did not
seem possible to exclude Item the inquiry the purer of the
muter to form a sound judgment as affected, or not, by
habitual intoxication. The defendants were, therefore,
entitled here to show that the captain had not the means to
exercise a sound judgment. The court thought the jury
would not have c .me to a different conclusion if the aci.
dance comp Lined of as being excluded had bun received at
the trial, and they were of opini-in that the verdict was full,
warranted by the evidence which hail been Weil. The role
must, therefore, be diesharged.
COMMIT v. lIVDSON --PALI. IMPRISONMENT.

Ia the ease which was a deasanrer t) the defwisat's
pleas, sad whisk was argued a short tine age, the court gave
ju, pleat Isr the dia.-adult.
BLAND IP. LORD ALTANLIT.—ATTEMPT TO SIT ASIDE

♦N ANNUITY DIED.

The Attorney-General (with whom was Mr. Maynard)
showed cause against a rule calling on two persons, named
Browse and nuttier, to show cause why a certain deed of
annuity should not be a:t taide on the ground that
at the time of it. execution a part of the considera-
tion money was retained or returned contrary to the
statute, and that the pecuniary consideration for On,
annuity had not been properly stated and duly en-
roiled. The defendant had hid by fur six years until
some of the parJte concerned were dead, and the state•
meats on which the application was made could not be con-
tradicted. There was, however, no ground for setting aside
the annuity. The consieteration for the annuity (which was
1,4801. per annum) was 8,0001 , and the sum of 5,0001. was
actisalig then paid in money, the def ndant owing Mr. Bland,
to whom V.* annuity was granted, 3,000!. 1. r mon y pre-
viously advanced, and 233!. for money to keep up a policy of
assuraac't on the life of the Duke of Beaufort, who was
security for Lord Alvanley. It wax clear that the party bor-
rowing was broad to keep up the policy, and that a payment
made by another person to discharge that duty was suffi-
cient to constitute a lawful debt; and, if so, both the sums
were real dents, and Mr. Bland was entitled to have them
satisfied. The statute only applied to sums which ware re-
tained under false pretences; here, on the contrary, every-
thing had been honest and fair.—Sir F. Thesiger (with
whom were Mr. Butt and Mr. Patendurff) ennunded
that if p.K of the consideration-money had been returned oe
retained at the time of granting the annuity, the court had
no discretion, but were bound to apply the provisions of the
statute ; and if it did so, they must set aside the annuity.
The defendant was qnite ready to pay what should be found
due for principal and interest, but contended that he was
entitled to have the annuity decd set aside.—The court de-
ferred Usk It.

,judgmenl

BAIL COURT.—YMITZUDAT.
Sitime to Baneo.—tlefure Mr. Justice Erls.
THE QUIRE E. Ditotarr.—Tus TOOTING CHOLERA CASES.
Mr. Ba!tontine (a summary of whose motion we gav yes.
terdvy), raid that in this cs.se he had been given to under-
stand that his learned friend Mr. Lush had i motion to make,
with which he would, perhaps, at Luce proceed, in order
that ho (Mr. Bail Anna.) might proofed with hi. own motion.
Mr. Ludt said that the application he was ahout to make
was aroiinded on an affidavit, which the party was going im-
mediately to swear, and he requested that his motion might
be allowed to ottrid over until that hail been done. His
learned friend, Mr. Ballantine, however, was aware of the
contents of the affidavit abaut to be str.rn.
Mr. Baltantini said he was vex at all acquainted with the
statements which the efitivvit on the ot.er ede would eon-
It would be a matter of persnanl acteirmwilaiion to
himself if his seemed friend would make his oppiiestion im-
mediately. It was not necessary to wait for the affidavit, as
Mr. Lush could himself state the (dna which It was intended
to contan.
Mr. Lush then Lid that he had to mere the court either
that he night be allowed to show eaue against Mr. Balm-