The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-26 00:00:00

plaintiff entered into the contract to wrlie the article for the
encyclopedias he parted with at his eoppight, oast the de.
Sendants, who were now the proprietors of** oloperia,
had full right to publish the said article la any foes they
;night think fit ; that such was the real assitenlandieg
respect of all amides furaished to a work of this nature,
unless there wee some express stipulation to the sorcery.
▪ There had been assay thousand contributors to this work
es, and with moue of them there had her an agreement thai
they ontiTerrted with their copyright far the pirese of this
simple ia, bat no Ruth connect had been made with the
plainti . It was also contended that thieves the readiag of
the 18th section of the Copyright Act, 6 & 6 Via, esp. 46,
• which applied only to periodicals, and not to such wake as
an encyclopedia.
Mr. Stepant Telford, Mr. Bethell, and /b.
:" appeared for the plaintiff, and contended that thrk=.
se, • upon tbe life of Thomas Aquinas was written by the pinball
and furnished to the publishers, and expressly for the Ras
T'• eyclopsedis," and they had no right whatever to publish it
• • in a separate form. The intention of the defendant' win le
• take advantage of the public attention which had been
drawn lately to the author of the article, and to make whet
profit they could of this circumstance ; they did not allege
that any particular contract had been entered iato between
the plaintiff and the publishers, or that any reservation had
been made on the part of the plaintiffs. It was elms that
the plaintiff bad only parted with so much of his copyright
r would entitle the proprietors of the " Encyclopedia" to
' publish it in connexion with that work; in heti it was a
mere license by the plaintiff to use the article for that pur-
pose and no other. The plaintiff had no wish to exc'e'l that
• he was the author, but he did net choose that an
essay which he had written so many years ago should be
' brought in this cheap form so prominently before the public,
more particularly at a time when he was too much occupied
with other matters to have leisure for revising it. If there
lad been any contract between the plaintiff and thupub-
, Ushers it would certainly have found its way into their an-
ewer, but no such allegation was therein contained: aod by
the 18th sect. of the Copyright Act, the copyright of by
articles (unasked to the proprietors of such • work as this
• eras reserved to the author, in the absence of any contra to
.* the contrary.
• • The Vice-Chancellor said it appeared to hies there was no
•; ere whatever to be tried at law ; the plaintiff was the origi-
i • *al author of the article, and thereby had the copyright en-
-*sly in himself, except so far as:he had parted with it to the
publishers. The plaintiff stated in his affidavit that he had
written the article expressly for this publication, and that he
did not intend to give any additional right, beyond
C. the mere feet of the right to publish it in the • en-
be cyclopedia." The defendants, for some reason, had
1 stated their ease upon the answer in a manner pi:tith-
e) laxly novel. Instead of saying that they believed the contract
0• between the plaintiff and Messrs. Baldwin and Cradock to
• have been such that the plaintiff was employed to write the
article, so that the copyright should belong to Messrs. Bald-
win and Credo*, and that ft was paid for aecordiogly, they
bad set forth not what the contract was, but that they be-
lieved it to be true that the plaintiff had compote d the
article, and furnished it to Megan. Baldwin and Cradock,
who had paid the plaintiff a sum of money calculated at the
rate of 'even guineas per sheet ; that the payment so made
was at the usual rate at which payment was made to the
authors of articles for the said encyclopedia, and that all
such articles were, as the defendants believed, uniformly
eomposed upon the terms that the copyright iu the same for
all purposes should belong exclusively to the publishers and
proprietor' of the encycleemlis' except, save and expt, in
. • flees instances in whicn special agreements were made
•-• • mile She reservation to such authors of the liberty
,-ds• publish their respective articles in • minuet. form.
..• irk e defendants then stated that they believed the ordinary
• - *era is of contract were adopted between the plaintiff and the
sethl, ;there, and that no special agreement was entered ler
aeon en the said plaintiff and the said publishers with re-
'poet the reserve of any right of publication
the plain-
: tiff. T.
he defendants went on to mate, that in absence
0: any lip mist agreement to the contrary articles contributed
to encycls 'peclias were, according to the custom prevalent in
the trade at amongst authors, understood to be contributed
on the term that the assignment belonged to the publishers
of such err, dopiedia for all parposee—His Honour said it
was to be ob.. -ved that, according to the law of the land,
everything rera, ..ined in the plaintiff, so far as he had not
parted with it, and therefore no special agreement was
aeoweary, He et. nsidered that the mode which the de-
fendants had &d 01.,. ted of stating the cam did not mean
that the contract sus a that the plaintiff should write the
article in such atom ~hat the copyright should belong to
the proprietors. They had need this circuitous language,
which seemed to n ate what was meant to be
stated, but purposely avoided stating that which
alone could have any e •eight, and they so managed
the statement that it would be impossible es try an issue at
law. He was asked to colloid. ,r the plain language of the
plaintiff's affidavit, and it epee ved to him to remain un-
answered, and nothing had been brought forward by the de-
fendants to displace the plaintifi's case. The defendants had
thought fit to make a show of a ease, but had abstained
from stating the substance. The motion to dissolve the in-
junction must therefore be refused, anti with coots.

earning her livelihood by singing in the abuts of London,
depression. W erib.t• bats and reavieseed her to give up
the thask. whit she AK cud hie wife brought the ehild
down to Lynn. That la Mends, liff ilegiesmatani Ms wife
had A Wanpriall , MUM thew toped
for • time.; that the child was then reearsuri ben 'Lynn,
and pieced by Its nether under Mr. Bucking-
. ham's ewe, bat esgsment denied that he .restr told '
Mee White. that Jilt • alb bad ill-need har shill.
The Aida* elan litheit Mr. end Mn. Ibeithighaea
were hileerhg the tielen ',the suA..ead weft et the.
Ramarket Theatre, ffirna •Mbe wimt bed ffittliwnted
at tie Strand Theatre under the stemmed urea et Ramsay,
and that she was is fast ea gotten ; *ether deter Mini A.
White was acting under the name of Omura at the Adelphi
That they were all ROOM. 111111601164 thst Mr. Buckiegham
meant to send the child to a faireita esnatbsty ; that ate bad
been taken to the Green-roe= et the Haymarket Theatre,
and one night she was introdund intes the masagar's box.
As to stealing the child the affidavit ended aba bah ellen-
tardy run Wdepenent's will/rand said she would net meant
to her moths?, and that depasent's wife then brought her
down to Cambridge. The ellklavit sonoluded by..g that
the mother was not a tit party to have the custody of the
child, as her intention was ts tarn its beauty and talents
to theatrical purposes, and hibriary bar up in the catholic
faith, having takes her ewe to W arwick.street
Chapel, and once to Mishit catholic place of
worship.,—Mr. Worlledge • eiontteded that from the
whole tenor of the affidavit it was clear that Mr. and
Men. Brown were now living together.—Mr. Justice Wight-
man directed the child to stand up, and proceeded to exa-
mine her, but in an under tine, so that we could not hear
what transpired. The learned Judge then said that, fro
the conversation he had had with the child, it appeared the
was very unwilling to return to bur mother, because she had
not been well used. She had stated that Mr. and Mrs.
Brown were now living together, which removed thedifficulty
he had felt on that ground. Mr. and Mrs. Brown were the pas-
ties whom the mother and father had 'elected to have charge of
their child for seven years. The court had now to appoint a
guardian, which was a matter more properly within the
furisdiction of the Court of Chancery. In this ease the
child had been removed from her mother's ousted', and it
might be said, had any, one a better right to have the child ?
But there was this fact in the cam, that the little girl was now
right years old, and for seven years. she had been with
Mr. and Mrs. Brown, by the mutual consent dhoti' parents,
and bad been removed on tocount of the disitgressent
between ?di. and Mn. Brown to the can of Mg. Busking-
ham. It was said by Mr. Ball that she ought AM to have
been taken from her mother, and that she had bees stolen.
From Mr. Brown's affidavit it appeared that was hardly a fit
expression; as the child went voluntarily to Mrs. Brown, and
refused to go back to her mother. It sussed to him in these
caws that the feelings of the child ought to be consulted;
she appeared to be very intelligent, and able to determine
where she would wish to go, and she preferred remaining
where she was. Ile believed that was the pure emanation of
her mind, and that she bad not been tutored. Ho should
therefore determine that she should stay with Mr. and Mrs.
Brown, her mother having muse to her at all reasonable
times.—Whilit the I. &rued judge was examining the child,
the mother, who was in court, fainted, and was carried out
in a strong fit of hysterics. After the case was over, Mr.
Brown left the court, sobbing in a most vehement manner,
and on the parties reaching the hall a scene of great excite-
ment ensued, the mother rushing forward to seize her child,
which she was prevented from doing by the usher of the
court. A cab was then procured, and Mr. Brown, his soli-
citor, and the child, departed.

COURT OF EXCREQUEII.
sittings in same.
RAMSDEN V. THU NUNCHASTaII SOUTH JUNCTION
AND ALTRINCHAH RAILWAY CUMPANY.—TRTAPABB.
This was an action of trespass ►inst the defendants for
breaking and entering the plaintiff's close, situate in a cer-
tain street or highway in Liverpool, by boring a tunnel
underneath without having first tendered compensation or
amends, in accordance with the provisions of several statutes
in that behalf. The real question which was brought before
the court upon demurrer was, whether the defendants be-
came trespassers by having neglected to tender compensa-
tion. They contended that after they heel entered upon the
premises, as the statutes empowered them to do, it was the
duty of the owner, if he thought himself damnified, to have
a jury summoned to ascertain the amount of compensation to
which he was entitled.—The Court held that the defendants
were bound, in the first instance, to tender reasonable com-
pensation, and that as they had not done so they were Ares-
passers.—Judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
Before Mr. Commissioner Hotroyd.
Re CHAMREILS AND Co.—The bankrupts were the bankers
in New Bond-street. This was a meeting to declare a dividend.
An application was made by the trustees under Mrs. Cham-
bers's settlement, to be allowed to prove for a contingent inte-
rest under that settle ment. Mr. Chambers, it wan stated, bad
put upwards of 10,0001. worth of property into settlement
upon the usual trusts, for Mrs. Chambers and the children;
and there was this additional covenant—that if Mr. Cham-
bers should die in the lifetfine of his wife his executors should
pay to her, in addition to the other provision', an annuity of
3001. The proof was put forward under the act 6.h Ore.
IV., cap. 16, sec. 66, which provided that where a bank-
rupt had, before the iseuins of the aommisafon, contracted
any debt payable on a conungency which bad not happened,
the person with whom such debt had been contracted might
apply to the commissioners to set
.• value on such debt, and
admit him to prove it, and receive dividend thereon. On
the part of the asaigneea the proof was resisted, on the
ground that, the trustees having already proved for 11,000!.
and 7,0001. the amount of 1. Bled property, Mr. Chambers
would be able, out of the funds thus derived, to provide for
the contingency created by the covenant now b. fore the
court.—Tbe Commissioner, after examining the cases cited
on each aide, said it appeared to him that the claim was well
founded, the contingency on which the annuity of 3001.
wee payable to Mrs. Chambers, the previous death of her
husband, being one that might arise. And though Mrs.
Chambers might derive additional benefit from the other
provisions of the settlement, that was no ground for de-
priving her of this annuity.—Ultimately, a dividend of 6s.
en the estate of Mr. Chambers, sen., was declared.

BAIL COURT.
Sittings In Banco, before Mr. Justice WIAEOTIJA.
RI MA.IO Ai= WHITI.—TAM CASE OF ALLEO ED CHILD-
ITIALINO.—At the sitting of the court Mr. Justice Wight-
mae inquired whether this case, which stood over till this
morning in order that it might if possible be settled, had
been arranged I—Mr. Ball replied in the aegative.—Mr.
Justice Wightman then stoked at whose instance the child
had been first delivered ir.to the care of Mr. Brown and his
wife.—Mr. Ball : At the instance of the mother, my lord.—
Mr. Justice Wightman : Then how came she to leave their
custody in March, 1847?—Mr. Ball : She was removed by
the mother, my lord, and placed under the care of Mr.
Buckingham, who is her uncle, having married one of the
' sisters of Miss Frederica White.—Mr. Justice Wiphtmsn
then wished to know how the child had got again into
' Mr. Brown's custody in Nov. last?—Mr. Bell stated that:
she had been stolen. Mr. Justice Wightman said he
did not think that was the proper term to apply to
-- • the transaction ; the child might have been removed '
Marrepdtionsly, that was intelligible.—Mr. Ball these I
r' li dedma in his affidavits,and submitted that the mother
' the right to the custody of the child. There was
:wag
nf awl le rif. " It th be Mberf.orCe h Ibis;
..
9.
et Thy: adfathbeere,nbusttahtedwthasatnoat
t elesent. According to the 71st section of the Poor-law Amend-'
• • ment Act, St was enacted that where a child is born a bastard,,
it should have the same settlement as the mother, and be
part of her family till it attained the age of 16, and that the
mother should be bound to maintain her child till it attained
• the age nefore mentioned.—Mr. Worlleage said that here
Miss White did not propose to keep her offspring.—Mr. Ball
replied that though the child would be in the custody of Mr.
• Buckingham, yet Miss White would maintain it.—Mr. Woe-
ledge said the metiers of the Poor-law Amendment Act to
which his 'learned friend had referred would not avail
him, for that section only applied ti cases where the
Child was likely to become chargeable to the parish;
but here Mr. and Mrs. Brown were willing to keep this
child, as they bad done for seven years.—Mr. Justice
Wightman thought he ought not to interfere with the
present cuatody.—Mr. Ball said he claimed to be heard on
the whole caw, before his lordship decided. The learned
eounsa then proceeded to state that the child had been in
the quiet powession of the mother, at Mr. and Mrs Buck-
ingham's; that she had been removed by stratagem—he
would not use the term stolen, as his lordship did not ap-
prove of it. By the old law, all illegitimate children were
chargeable on the parish ; but by the statutes. of Elisabeth
and James, the mother was the party to maintain her
child ; if the father, however, was discovered, he was bound
to pay for its maintainance. The point now before the
Court was much considered by Mr. Justice Christian, in his
work on Bastardy. He said, that a mother had a right
to keep an illegitimate child, where there was no
Before M MIDDLESE SESSION S.
putative father, Here they had heard that a Mr. Christopher anal X a
Deo& ot Magistrates.
Thurston was the father, but he had never offered to keep THE LAW or Lavv.—ASSAULT.— W. and ti. Hodgkinson,
this infant. The teamed counsel then read very fully the brothers, were
of the indicte
me of d for having com
Mr.mitted
ant anine assauo-
lt
affidavit of Miss Frederica White, the mother, which in sub- upon a person n Spra Bcfi pr
stance stated that the child wee born in London on Nov. Ist, seemed ; Messrs. Charnock and Metcalf defended.—The
1839, not the 30th of November, as ceiginally represented; defendant William was in occupation of a house No. 1,
that a mouth after its birth the deponent went to reside at Vernon-place, the landlord and owner of which was a Me.
tho how of Mr. Brown, who was then i arrying:on the bag- Greeowood, a licensed victualler. The defendant, it ap-
neas of a grocer at Wisbesah ; that in 1840 deponent, with peared, owed 601. for rent, and, as he had no property in.
her child, came to London, sad went to live with a Mr*. the house save one chair and three bundles of straw, the
Bllingham; that in January, 1811, Mrs. Letitia Brown landlord was anxious to get rid of him, particularly as he
sailed on depopent and *eked to be allowed to keep her (defendant) was receiving rent from lodlet re. Accordingly,
shad, to which deponent consented, stipulating that she he authorised a licensed broker, named Worm., to make a
should have it back when convenieut to her to keep it. In distress'. Worms deputed the present prosecutor to make
March, 1847, Mr. Brown Ids on her, and stated that on the levy. Armed with a warrant, the prosecutor proceeded
account of the violent position of his wife he to the house, but could not gain admisaion. The servant
had left her, and that she had beaten and ill. girl was washing the door-steps when he went, but she,
treated deponent's daughter • thereupon she immediately guessing what his (Sorter') object was, shut the door, ad
proceeded to Lynn, where Mrs. Brown was then residing, handed the pail, Be., to her mistress through the area, and
and took her child away, placing her under the care of Mr. the mistress gave the girl a bonnet and shawl in the same
Buckingham. The affidavit concluded by stating that the manner, upon whieh she went away, and did not return the
said Margaret White had been stolen nom her mother's whole day, evidently to avoid giving "Spriggs a chance of
care, and prayed that she might have possession of her child getting in at the door. About seven o'clock in the morning
in order to bring her up and educate her in a proper main r. of the 3rd instant Spraggs saw the door open, and rushed in.
The affidavit of Mr. L. S. Buckiegham was next read by In the pasinge he encountered the
Thus Hodgkin-
Mr. Ball, from which ir appeared that Margaret White came eon, who demanded to *es his authority. idence fur
into his custody in March, 1847 ; that in November of the the defence MN, that Spriggs refused to produce his war-
ming, year she was playing in Ooldendquere with a (Tani- I rant, but Spragge himst If swore that the defendant held him
dog, when deponent observ, d her speaking to a woman, in a manner that rendered him incapable of shoeing it. It
upon which he sent out a servant after her, but, on the seemed that a scuffle mimed, and that blows were given, in
servant reaching the spot, the woman, child, and dog had consequence of which these proceeding" were taken.-11r.
all disappeared The learned counsel then called his lord- Chimera( said that by law no distraint for rent could be
ship's attention to the case of Waite, which had lately been made between sunset and sunrise. By the evidence it was
determined in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which his clear that this entry was effected shortly after seven o'clock
lordship had given •de ci-ion which every one must have in the morning ; whereas according to the almansek,
heard with delight. In that cm his lordship said which might be taken as competent authority upon such
it was not because a woman was poor that her ch.ld should matter*, the sun did nnt s ice on the morning in question
be taken from her. After quoting many authorities, Mr. until 8 minutes past 8 Under such circumstances—holding
Ball submitted that if his lordship declined to interfere, this it proved that Stooges did not producetin authority when
poor child might be turned out on the streets (for the court challenged te do so—the learned counsel contended that the
had heard of the indigence of Mr. Brown). He trusted, defendants were perfectly justified in looking upon him as a
therefore, his hardship would grant this application, and re. trespasser, and in using the necessary force to expel him frem
More the child to her proper custody.—Mr. Justice Wight- the premises.—The learned Chairman said, is lasing the case
man said the habeas corpus was directed to George Brown before the Jury, that if they tell satisfied upon the evi-
and his wife, but George -Brown only appeared. He should denim that Spragge did not produce the walnut when it
be unwilling to change the abode of the child, which she bad WU demanded, the defendants were entitled to an acquittal,
had for seven years, and in which both Mr. Thurston the for he was in fact a trespasser, and they were acting rightly
supposed father, and Mies F. White had so long acquinced; in turning him out. He said he had had some doubt whether
but there was this difficulty : Mr. Brown was separated from he should. not withdraw the case from the jury, directing the '
his wife, and he (the learned judge) thought a man was not defendants to be acquitted, hut as the position of landlord
the prop, party to have the custody of a female child.—Mr. and tenant was not clearly shown to exist between Mr. Green-1
WorileV seated that Mr. Brown and h's wife were twin wood and the defendant, in consequence of the introduction of
living tleolbsr.—Nr. Justice Wightman said that, by Mr. the name of a Mr. Newton, he thought it would be better to
Bah •• @SION the contrary appeared.—Mr. Woriledge submit it to them. The question as to time should be con-
Weida Maid* affidavit of Mr. Brown, which showed that sidered with the question as to whether Hodgkinson was
a/ sorogodom iris only temporary. The learned counsel justified in treating Spraggs as a trespasser.—The ihry said
OM ill rind a very lengthy affidavit. The 1m- they did not wish to have anything to do with the legal part
t forts &Wood by the affidavit were, that in 1839 of the matter ; they badman* rather give a verdict upon
temoollott
F. Inks cam to deponent's house in Witheach, and the merits of the cairs--The learned chairman said they
ebilled that she was the wife of Mr. Christopher Thurston, must not act as they wished in this and such like matters.
label= brother to deponent's wife; that she then had a In hie opinion the whole case depended upon the construe-
- dior at the breast; that deponent took in the said F. White Lion to
teesla on the evidence with regard to the produc-
staintsined her and her child tilllB4o, when she secretly
e".
Lion
of warraut,—The jury, 'after ssitation found
• WM lopoidoso•rfoof : that havingheind that ldhf Whit* was a terdict of 13willy.—The defendant, Samuel, was fined 6d.

•
Before Mr. Catania/lifter abeParrd-,.
Patieca METIIIIINICH ♦ CllEOll'Oll.-0. stougemont,
merchant, Bread-street.buildings, came up for his last ex.
smination.—Mr. O. J. Bahrend, the Frankfurt consul, ten-
dered a proof on behalf of Prince Metternich, who was re-
turned in the balance-sheet as a creditor for 1991. 15s. 6d.
It appeared that the bankrupt and his brother bad acted as
agents for the sale, in this country, of wines, produced
sit the prince's estates. The claim was grounded on the
affidavit of the prince's agent.—llia honour said this was
insufficient ; the creditor himself must swear to his debt.
—Mr. Bahrend said the prince was, totally ignorant of the
transaction, and it would be difficult to get him to go through
the necessary formalitie.,—The Commissioner: If he wishes
to prove his debt, be must adept the foim specified n the
set. No distinction an he made in this court in favour of
Prince Metternich, no more than if he were the Duke of
Northumberland. The proof must be sworn before a notary
or before the British consul.—The claim was for the present
disallowed. The bankrupt passed his last examination un-
opposed, the official assignee stating that his books were
numerous and remarkably well kept. The balance-sheet
showed debit" and liabilities to the amount of about 90,0001.,
of which 30,6401. were secured. On the other side the good
and doubtful debts due to the bankrupt amounted to 15,9591.;
property, 7,0961. ; ditto, in the hands of creditor', 14,5791.;
cash given up to official assignee, 2,7571.; were9s7; private
prope,ty, 12,6001. The trade expeoses put down at
2,0491. • the loans at 17,0411. ; and the amount drawn out by
the bankrupt at 1,0071.