The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-11 00:00:00

a ato tnialtuntr.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Master of the
RE WILLIAM RIME COOPEE ♦ND GEOHOE WILLIAM
WMITEAILEIL—EILEATVIL—Iia the report 11 this case, in
tbft piper on Thum-lay, it wan stated that there was en
affidavit that Mr. George William Whittaker was " keeping
out of theway to avoid his creditors." This was a mistake.
The affidavit, we are informed, was, to the belief of the tur-
tles making it, that Mr. Whittaker was keeping out of the
way to avoid service of the order to deliver the bill of costs to
Messrs. Bicknell and Maggot..

Before Vloe.CLaml%ar Knight Brace.
RE GRATENOR 3 AND 4 WILL. IV., CHAP. 74.
CO:qCURRENCE OP COVET of CHANCERY A 8 PROTECTOR

OF Sarruttriont LI asinarne Loran. —This was the peti-
tion of a tenant in tall in rstrainasr, ander a settlement,
whereby a prior life estel• was blobs& Is a person who had
eornrnitted felony and had boss transported 15 years ago,
The tenant for life had sold his interest. The object of the
prevent application was to obtain the concurrence of the
court, as protector of the settlement (under the act for the
abolition of fines sod recoveries), in the necessary proceedings
for barring the entail, either absolutely or so far as might
be requisite for raising by mortgage sufficient to purchase
the antecedent life estate, and for en-king the farm. The
property was stated to be let at 2001. per annum, and the
price agreed to be paid for the life estate was 1,8001. The
amount intended to be laid out in stocking the farm was
1.0001. The age of the tenant for life was stated to be 66.
Mr. Elmaley, in support of the petition, cited " Re Waine-
wright," (l Phillips, 2.sB).—The Vice-Chancellor said, that
the price agreed to be paid for the purchase of the life estate
was too large, and ordered the petition to stand over for affi-
davits on this point. If they should prove satisfactory, the
order would be made for raising the whole sum.
Ex PARTE FOLIONO, RE SAIEUEL.-TRANSPERRING
Fur TO A DIFFERENT COMMIESIONER.-Mr. Basildon
appeared, in support of this petition, the object of which was
to have the fiat transferred from Mr. Commissioner Goulburn
to Mr. Commissioner Holn)yd, on the grounds that the bank-

rapt bad been in partnership one-ot the Moen. tli►
Duel (the goldsmiths, of anowr-squre), the male of
whose bankruptcy was before Mr. Commnidoner Hobss,
and that the affairs of the two trades were on
connected with one another that they could set
be conveniently investigated before different commissioned%
The application wee stated to be supported by meditate In
the amount of 70,0001., including Messrs. Orerend, Gunny,
and Co., and other.—Mr. Rana, for the official amigos
and the petitioning creditor, opposed the petition, and old
that in many cases the interests of the two estates would be
in conflict, and that there might be inconvenience in their
being administered by the same official sasignee, and before
the same commisirioner; and that, at led events, a much
stronger case must be made than the petitioners had ents-
blished, for changing the commissioner after the opening of
the fiat and choice of assignees.—The Vice-Chancellor (who
was assisted by Mr. Commissioner Ooulburn) said that,
without deciding that a time might not come when it would
be proper to make such an order as was sought, his Honour
thought that at present the administration of the estates
should not be disturbed. The matter must stand over, with
liberty to apply, and also to amend the petition, if necessary.

Before Vice. Chancellor Wtgrain.
ATIORAPIT.OZNSILAI, V. JOHNSON. —I N FORMATION.
CHAILITY.—By the will of John Huddle, dated in 1604,
certain measuages and premises in Devonshire, amongst which
was comprised a piece of land adjoining the churchyard at
Great Torrington, with certain almshouses erected thereon
by the testator, were devised to trustees upon trust for the
poor people of the town of Great Torrington. In 174.5,
the pees of land and almshouses became vested upon the
trusts of the will in the mayor and aldermen of Great Tor-
rington with other persons who were also feoffees of certain
other estates called the town lands, which they held for the
benefit of the poor of Great Torrington generally. In 1843,
the feoffeee of the townlands estate, in whom the
almshouse estate was still vested on the trusts of
the will of John Huddle, pulled down the alms-
houses in question and erected others in their stead.
upon a different site, consisting of a portion of the townlands
estate. The present information was filed at the relation of
certain inhabitants of Great Torrington against the ['toffees
of the townlands estate, praying that it might be declared
by the decree of tbe court that the pulling down of the alms-
houses was a breach of trust ; that an account might be taken
of the loss sustained thereby by the almshouse charity ;
that the defendants might be decreed to pay the same, and
that the money so paid might be employed in the restora-
tion and erection of the almshouses on their original site.
The defendants by their atuwer admitted that the almshouses
bad been removed from their original site, and alleged that
it had been done to give room for enlarging the churchyard,
and that the removal from the confined situation of the old
almshouses was a benefit to the occupiers u well or to the
Vgenerally. At the hearing of the cause in March.
% decree was made directing that the cause should stand
over, with liberty to either party to apply to the Attorney.
General foe his directions how to act, and reserving the con-
sideration of the costa. The matter had since been referred
W the Attorney-General, who had certified that the spot
selected for the new almshouses was much more desirable
than the old one, and that as the substitution had actually
taken place it was not desirable to rebuild the houses on
their old site, provided a good title to the new site could be
mode to the trustees. The cause now came back for further
directions. Mr. Wood and Mr. Terrell appeared for the in-
formants; and Mr. Romilly, Mr. Willeack, and Mr. Bata
for the defendanta—His Honour made a decree reciting the
proceedings before the Attorney-General, and his certificate
tansequent therein, and referring it to the master to state
whether by any and what act • good title could be made to
the trustees of the old almshouses to the sits on which the
new almshouse were built. Further directions and cuts
rorerrod.

COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
Sittings in BAUM
HALL T. BAINDRIDOZ AND ANOTEBR.—CONTLACT TOR
• LICINBII TO COB IYDROVIRMONTO IN MARINE STIAN
ENOINIB.—This was a spatial case which in substanos dis-
closed the following facts :—The plaintiff is the inventor of
certain Improvements in marine steam engine, and sought
to recover the sum of 2,7001., which he alleged to be due to
him from the defendants, as directors of the British and
North American Steam Navigation Company, in considera-
tion of his having given them liberty to use his invention.
An egreement had been entered into between the plaintiff
tad the eewipany, by which the latter promised to pay him
the nos of 2,0001., and N. per hores-power for each and
every hone-power used by them in any mita, they might

beild. The engines of the plaintiff were put into the de-
readmits' vessel the British Queen, but were not put into
the Preaidest, another vessel belonging to the defendants,
for fitting engines into which Mewrs. Fawcett and Co. had
been employed. The plaintiff, however, was of opinion
that he was sodded to be pad for the liberty to use his in-
vention ; and that, as the defendants bad had his license to
introduce his improvements into the eaglets of the Presi-
dent, they were bound to psy the stipulated sum per horse-
power, although the improvements had not in feet been used
therein. The defendants said that the agreement was b
deed made by one folly, who had no authority, though
their partner, to bind them by deed ; that, if such was the
ease, the agreement, as it was not necessarily to be completed
within the year, was not signed by them or their agent, ac-
cording to the requirements of the statute of frauds ; and
that, though the defendants migtu be liable for th.f stipu-
lated sum perhorse-power on engines which they had directed
Mean. Fawcett to furnish, fitted up with the plaintiff 'a
improvements. they were not liable for that sum on every
engine they might use, not being under a contract always to
use the plaintiff's invention.—Mr. Cowling appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Peacock for the defendant.—The court
took time to consider its judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Nms Puna_—At Guildhall, before the Lord Odd Justice and a
Common Jury. -

RUSSELL O. BRIANT.—MUSICAL COPTIIIORT.—Mr. Ser.
jeant Talfourd and Mr. Lock for the plaintiff; Mr. Lush
sud Mr. Fitseatrick for the defendant.—This was an &ethos
broeght by Mr. Henry Russell, a musician, against the pro-
prietor of the Horns Tevern,at Kennington, to recover—nom i
Daffy compensation in damages, but in reality certain penalties
—for having wrongfully and unjustly caused to he repre-
sented two songs, called respectively " The Gambler's Wife,"
and The Ship on Fire," without the consent of the plaintiff,
who claimed the exclu-ive right to perform the said compo-
sitions. The defendant pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Seneent
Talfourd, in opening the case, stated that Mr. Russell's ob-
ject in bringing the present action was to repress the coons
of piracy, which had for some time past been carried on
with reference to hi, productions. As long ago as
1833, the plaintiff composed the song of " The Gambler's
Wife," and in the year 1842, that of " The Ship on fire."
These songs were dramatic in their character, and Mr.
Russell claimed the sole and exclusive right to represent
them in public. In the month of February, 1846, he dis-
covered that a Mr. Henry Smith was about to give an enter-
tainment, in which he proposed to introduce the two songs
mentioned, and to adopt them as his own compositions.
Announcements were published to the effect that Mr. Henry
Smith from America would give an entertainment on Tues-
day evening, March 13, at the Horns Tavern Assembly-
rooms, and the "Gambler's Wife" and "Ship on fire"
were included amongst the compositions selected for
the occasion. On seeing these advertisements the plain-
tiff, through the medium of his solicitor, informed
Mr. Briant, the proprietor of the Assembly-rootus, that
if he sanctioned the representations complained of, he
said proceed against him under the stet. 3 & 4 Will. IV ,
cop. 15. The detendsut, however, disregarded this notice,
and thu entertainment took place as announced. The pre-
sent action was, theref re, brought to movie the penalty of
40s. for the representation of each of the two songs in ques-
tion. The words of the statute were, that " the author of
any tragedy, comedy, opera, farce, or any other dramatic
entertainment, shall have the sole liberty of representing, or
causing to be represented, at any place of dramatic enter-
tainment, any such production," &e. ; and the act made this
provision by way of remedy :—" If any person shell re-
present, or cause to be represented, say such production,
without the cement of the author in writing, he shall
be liable to pay to the author either the amount of profit or
the amountof injury which the author might sustain by
reason of the representation, or to pay damages to the
amount of 405., &a Jie (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) contended
that the songs in question came within the scope and mean-
ing of the act, because they were entirely of a dramatic
character, hot the plaintiff's claim was strenethenal by the
provisions of a subsequent act, the sth and oth Vic., chap.
45, which extended to "musical compositions" the loenefit
of the former enactment. It might be contended on the
' part of the defendant, that the Horns Tavern Assembly
Rooms could not be called " a place of dramatic entertain-
ment" within the meaning of the statute, but he submitted
that the room in question was rendered a place of dramatic
, entertainment by the fact of such entertainment
having been exhibited there. The room was ipo facto
such a place Es the statute contemplated, and under these
circumstances there was no substantial ground for disputing
the plaintiff's right to maintain the present action. The
copyright of the two pieces was admitted, and a witness was
then culled to prove that Mr. Russell had composed the
music of the songs, and that he had always represented them
es his own productions.—Mr.West, &professor of 'runic, was
. called to prove that he was present at the entertainment in
question, and that Mr. Henry Smith performed the songs
attar the manner adopted by Mr. Runt. The witness also
stated that he considered the songs of a dramatic character,
inasmuch as they embodied recitative, and it was neceeury
to use gestures and dramatic action in order to give full
effect to the performance--Mr. Fox Cooper gave similar
testimony.—ln cross-examination it was suggested that the
"Battle of Prague" might, according to the witnesses'
account, be designated as a piece of a dramatic character, be-
cause it described the Snag of guns and clashing of swords,
the groans of the wounded, &c. The witness, however, did
I not include the " Battle of Prague" amongst " dramatic
songs" as it did not contain any recitative.
On behalf of the defendant it was contended that Mr.
Briant was not liable, inasmuch as the feet of his having let
his rooms to Mr. Smith did not make Dim the person
" representing or causing to be represented" the songs in
question. Mr. Smith took the rooms for his own benefit, and
Mr.Brient did no more than innocently let his room for a pur-
pose which be did not know to be unlawful. Mr. Smith, there-
fore, was the person who ought to have been proceeded
against, and Mr. Briant wits entitled tea verdict in bin favour.
Mr. Henry Smith was then examined, and his evidence
went to show that a correspondence had taken place between
him and Mr. Briant, which proved that the latter was not
the responsible party as respected the plaintiff's complaint.
The witness stated in fact that all the arrangements for the
concert wen made by himself, and not by the defendant.
The music he sang was not the same as that executed by
Mr. Russell.
The Lord Chief June. summed up, leaving it to the jury
tow, tint, whether or not the plaintiff's pieces of music in
question had been performed at the defendant's house, as
alleged ; secondly, whether or not the defendant caused Sr
procured them to be so performed; and, thirdly, whether
, the defendant's house was or not a place of dramatic enter-
tainment, within the act ?
The jury, after consulting together for a short time,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 41., and upon
being applied to, the learned Judge said he would certify, if
necessary, that the ease was a proper one to be Died in this
court, so as to avoid the operation of the late County Courts
Act, as to coots.