The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-20 00:00:00

without saying whether the informants and plaintiffs were
stglit or wrong in as:ribing to the deeds of 1839 and 1840 the
Osgaluietion and effect which they had ascribed to thou
ffisuments, or either of them—(a question which it was nn-
to
to decide)—it was sufficient to say that their con-
tention appeared to be one cot irrational, nut unfair, not
clearly nor litigiously wrong. It might be, perhaps, super-
fluous to say that this observation extended to the ques-
tion whether Mr. Gardner had properly or improperly been
allowed to officiate as minister of the church or place of wor-
ship. Some of the defendants, however, had contended,
and su..cessfully, that the Mortmain Act prevented the in-
struments in question from haying any operation. The
circumstances, however, which preceded the present litiga-
tion, the nature of the litigation, and the ground on which
relief had been refused, rendered it incumbent on the court
to refuse to give coats to the defendants, Messrs. Gardner,
Walter, Barbour, or, with one exception, to the defendant
Mr. Mallaby. In saying this, the court did not forget that
Mr. Gardner had nothing to do with setting up the objec-
tion arising from the Mortutain Act. As to Mr. Idallaby's
coats, Mr. Mallaby was in law, if not in law and fact, the
author of the omissions by which the failure of the charity
was ccusioned, as regarded the present suits. Without say-
ing whether, if the rules of the court would have permitted
it to direct the costs of any other parties to be paid by Mr.
his honour would have so directed, thi re was quite
enough to render it improper to give Mr Mallaby any costs,
except as to the supplemental information and bill.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings In Banc*.
Tho court proceeded to-day with the crown paper. The
onl_y case of public interest wee the following:
REOINA. O. JOHN KRAN.—APPEAL PROM THE Ds-
ClatON OP a Pooa Law AUDITOR-1n this case a rule for
a writ of certiorari had been obtained to remove the allow-
ance of a poor-law auditor, under the 7 and 8 Vic., cap. 101,
into this court. The order complained of had been made on
the parish of llawton, in the county of Stafford, fur the sum
of IR 11,. 11 id. Sir F. Thesiger was about to show cause
against the rule, when Lord Denman said it was impossible
for the court to know how to proceed under the act in ques-
tion, as it imposed duties on the court which they could not
perform. They might be bound to summon a jury to try
whether certain facts, which an auditor relied on, were true.
The time of the court would, by the clause which made it
the court of appeal from the decision of the auditors, be
taken up at great length to decide the most trifling ques-
tions. Sir F. Ihesiger said it was necessary that some rules
should be Lad down—first, as to whether more than one
counsel should be beard on either side ; neat, as to whether
it was competent to bring forward an affidavit in contradic-
tion of the facts which the auditor had returned as
the ground of his having allowed the charge against the
parish. It was clear that the legislature could never have
contemplated the inconvenience that would result from an
enactment which made their lordships a court of ap-
peal from the decisions of the auditors. If their lordships
were to refer the cases to an arbitrator, the question would
be, on what materials be was to form his judgment. Ile
should contend that what had been before the auditor could
only br e.maidkrea by their lordships.--Lord Denman said it
would be better that the parties should agree to reduce the
question to come simple point, and the court would then pro.
coed to the discussion of it.—Sir F. Thesiger said it appeared
to him that the only point which could be stated had been
stated by the auditor.—Lord Denman thought it had better
stand over for a week, and meanwhile the court would con-
sider what could be done.

BAIL COURT.
Sittings in nanco, before Mr. Justice Erle.
T1A1113,18 Conroe.—ALLEoln CUM]) STBALINO.—Mr.
Ball applied fora writ of habeas corpus to be directed to
George Brown, and Letitia, his wife, at present residing at
Cambridge, commanding them to bring up the body of
Margaret White, an infant aged eight yearn, the natural
daughtir of a Miss Frederica White. From the affidavit of
the mother, it appeared that the child seas born on Nov. 30,
1839, and she (the mother) went to live.at the house of
George Brown, a grocer, then residing at Lynn, in the
county of Norfolk. That she subsequently left Lynn, and
came to London, bringing the child with her. In the year
1811 Mrs. Letitia Brown, the wife of Mr. George Brown,
applied to have the care of the child ; to this Miss
White consented, stipulating that she should have
the child back when she pleased, Mrs. Brown
then took the child with her to Lynn. The
affidavit went on to state that the deponent received letters
every month informing her of the health and condition of
her child ; and that in March, 1847, George Brown called
upon her and stated that he had left his wife on account of
her violent disposition, and that she was not fit to have the
care of the infant ; that d.ponent immediately proceeded to
Lynn, brought away her child and placed her under the care,
of a Mr. Beekingham, a person residing in the neighbour-
hood of Bolden-squire. The affidavit concluded by saying
that the said George Brown had frequently asked deponent
to let him have the custody of her child, but she would not
consent, and that he had represented that he had told his
father and brother that he was its father, and he had
said that he believed his father would leave the
infant some property when he died. The next
affidavit was that of Mr. Divkingliaos, who stated that, hay-
ing possession of the child, George Brown called on him at
the end of August or beginning of September, 1847, and
read a paper purporting to be a formal demand on the part
of the mother fir the delivery of it to him, but that depo-
nent retuned to give her up. The learned counsel went on
to state that the child had been stolen whilst play log in
Golden-square, and it was, believed. by norm?. he
1.., ng said ne would obtain possession of it by some means
or another.—Mr. Justice Erle inquired if Mr. Ball was pre-
pared with any authority where the court had granted a
writ of habeas corpus on the application of the mother of an
illegitimate child ?—Mr. Ball said lie was not, but he would
r fee to the hooka—Mr. Justice Erle said sufficient hail
Leen shown to induce him to grant a rule.—Rule granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
COCKS C. PeItDAY.—AmIONYZNT OF COPYRIGIIT BY • 11
FOR/WINER —ln this case an action had been brought,
under b& 6 Vie., c. 45, by the plaintiff, a music-seller, in i
Prince! street, Hanover-square, against the defendant, also
a music-seller, in Holborn, to recover damages for the pub-
lication of a musical composition called " Die Elfin Wa'zer,"
the copyright of which was alleged to be in the plaintiff. ,
The pleas were severally. not guilty, no subsisting copy- !
right in the composition in question, and that the plaintiff
was not the proprietor of the copyright. There was a
verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared at the trial that
the copyright in question had been assigned by deed
to the plaintiff by two pi rsons of the name of Hoff-
man and Litbitzky, residing at Prague, in Austria.
The questions for the decision of the court were—firstly,
whether the copyright having been conveyed to the plaintiff
by foreigners, and not by British suhjects, he could maintain
an action for piracy; secondly, if that were so, whether the
vtrdict should be for the plaintiff on all the issues; and
lastly, whether the assignment was sufficient in law.—Mr.
Serjeant Talfourd, for the plaintiff, contended that, co far
from the composition of a foreigner residing abroad not
being the subject of copyright, either u regarded the
foreigner himself, or any one to whom he assigned his right,
it had been distinctly laid down that a foreigner wishing to
assign copyright to an English subject was invested with
all the rights and privileges of the law of England,
" Chappell r. Purity' (Mellon and Welsby, p. 300) ;
and although it had been laid down in that case that where
the publication was first made abroad en assignment to an
English subject was not sufficient, yet, in the present in-
stance, it was averred that the publication in Prague and
London was simultaneous and contemporaneous. With
regard to the deed of assignment, even if it should be held
that it was not a valid conveyance of the copyright, yet it
was contended that the plaintiff would have had a right to
bring this action as the agent and representative of the
person in whom the copyright was vested.—Mr. Serjeant
Channcll, for the defendant, urged that the de-
duration alleged that the copyright was vested in
the plaintiff, and unless it was shown that that
was the case he could not maintain an action. The assign.
ment was not valid, because the assignors, being foreigners
and resident abroad, could not convey a right to the plair tiff
which they did not themselves possess in England. That
even if foreigners had the right of assignment, that right
could only be obtained by the publication being first made
in England, and the fact of contemporaneous publication in
England and Prague was not sufficient. It was also urged
that the defendant had published the composition in ques-
tion before the assignment to the plaintiff, and therefore he
at least could not maintain the action.—The court took time
to consider its judgment.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Bitting. in Banco.
VENADLES, CLIRN, O. TliS BON. EAST INDIA COM-
PANY.—VALIDITT OP A GRANT OF ADMINISTRATION.—
The plaintiff sued as administrator of one Lewis, who was
entitled at the time of hie death to a considerable sum, vested
in East India stock, which the company refused to transfer
to the plaintiff; upon the ground that the deceased had made
a valid will and appointed two executors; that one of them,
named Rowley, was still surviving, and that although he
had renounced, during the life time of his co-executor, who
had accepted the trust and had since died, it was competent
to Rowley still to come forward and assume the functions of
an executor. The plaintiff under those circumstances ob-
tained administration from the Prerogative Court, and the
question was, whether he was entitled to claim the fund.
standing in the testator's name.—Mr. Peacock, who was
beard on behalf of the company, contended that the grant
of administration was void, inasmuch as it had been made
during the life time of the surviving executor. In " Harri
son o. Harrison," Sir H. J. Fug decided that administra-
tions granted under similar circumstances were valid, but
that learned Judge's decision was opposed to a host of au-
thorities.—Mr.: Butt, Q.C—i for the plaintiff, argued that
the Prerogative Court bad full powers to grant letters of ad-
mini.tration to the plaintiff, snd that having done so, as a
court of competent jurisdiction, the courts of law could not
interfere.—The arguracnts having been concluded, the court
took time to consider.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Font:dengue.
IN RE JACKSON, JACKSON AND HAWNES.—AN AC-
COUNTANT'S BlLL.—These bankrupts, who carried on the
business of factors and warehousemen in Milk-street, Cheap-
side, now applied for their joint certificates. The balance-
sheet embraced a period of exactly three years. The bank_ I
rupts had commenced business wish a capital of only 1201.,
and bad contracted debts to the extent of 5,2491., and liabi-
lities. 3,0611., to meet which the assets were stated to be,
good debts, 8861. The profits amounted to 4481., and the
expenses, 2,2201. No opposition was offered.—The learned
commissioner, having looked over the proceedings, observed
that there was a sum of 1201. stated to have been paid to an
accountant for the preparation of the accounts. And now,
added the commissioner, there is nothing for the creditors.
1201. is paid to an accountant over a mysterious transaction,
in which a certain firm get all the property. I must ad-
journ the case to see how the matter stands.