The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-19 00:00:00

SEOUND.COURt

Bitting' at Nisi Priam at GuildhalL—(Before Mr. Justice
Blackburn and Common Juries.)
SYDNEY I. JoUNE.—A %ONG OF THZ FIGHT.

Mr. Simon was counsel for the plaintiff ; the defendant
was ant represented.
This was an action brought by a comic singer at Evair.'s
Sapper Roolllk Coventintrilia, against • printer at Brighton,
for the infringement of the copyright of a song relating
to the late contest for the championship, entitled "The
Tight, or Tommy come up." it appeared that the rem.
peration is question, brought out after the great "battle
for a belt" between Sayers and Heenan, proved •
=swam, and was sung at Canterbury Hall,
too, by Mr. Thomas ; and Mr. Mowatt,
at whose house Thomas lodged, employed the defendant to
print 1,000 copies for es., it being declared by Thomas he
was the author. One copy only was sold, it having been
discovered that the song was an infringement of copyright.
The learned Judge having eomparod the songs, ruled that
there had been an infringement of the copyright, and that
although the defendant was ignorant of it, the plaintiff was
entitled to damages.
The jury found for the plaintiff -damages, one farthing.

COTJRT OF COMMON PLEAS.-Jkx. 18.

dittinp in Banco.—(Before Lard Chief Jostle* Ede and
Justine% Wil end Keating.)

READE r. CO,NUEST.--DRANATIsING Novei.a.
This matter came before the court upon a demurrer to
the second count in the declaration, which alleged that the
plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the copyright in a
novel or story called "Never too late to mend,' -sad that
the defendant, without the content of the plaintiff, drama-
tised that story and had it performed upon a public stage.
The question wan, whether this was say violation of the
plaintiff s copyright.
Mr. Lads, for the defendant, argued that copyright
was entirely the creature of the stetute, aod that the case
wee not within the Dramatic Copyright Act, 3 and 4 Wm.
IV., cap. IS, which simply provided that the author ~f any
tragedy, comedy, play, opera, fame, or other dramatic piece
composed, but not printed, should have the sole liberty to
represent it fora number of years. He also submitted that
the came was not withiu the Publiabed Hooka Copyright Act,
the sth and 6th Viet., cap. 45, the object of which was only
twooraevent the improper multiplication of copies of
A novel was published to be read, not to be per-
formed, and surely no action would lie against any person
who read a novel in public.
The Lord Chief Justice--A novel might in one sense be
called an epic poem in prose, if he might be allowed the
es=, and an epic poem might very well be called a
pees "—Milton's " Panama Lost," for instance.
Mr. Lash—Yes, because there the characters were intro-
duced as spekking for themselves.
Mr. Justice Williams could not see why the dramatidog a
novel should be prohibited, because it would seem that the
public performance of siudi a drama would give an eclat to
the original work, rather than diminish its circulation.
Mr. Lush—Just the same aa in the advertising of the
book by any third person. All that the defendant
had done was to select a few of the leading characters
from the novel and put them face to face upon the
stage, and this he submitted was no more a violation of the
law than if the actors had read a portion of the story upon
the stage.
Mr. Coryton, for the plaintiff, submitted that the de-
fendant had nu right to dramatise the plaintiff's work with-
out his authority, and he mentioned that this had been
already decided in one of the oourta in Paris. It had been
suggested that the plaintiff could sustain no damage by his
work being dramatised and thus advertised ; but the damage
was that the author by this course of conduct might be pre-
vented from dramatising the story himself. He submitted
that an author had at common law a right to any profits to
be derived from his work, either by putting it on the stage
or using it in any other department of art. Novels had
been written in England for many centuries, and so
indeed had plays ; but there was this notice-
able circumstance, that novels had constantly be-
come more and more dramatic, so that there was
becoming leas and less of distance between them ; and, in-
deed, in one remarkable instance—that of "Nicholas
Nickleby"—the very passages from the novel bad been put
into the mouths of the actors without alteration. Al-
though there might possibly be an adaptation of a novel to
the stage, it wee sufficient for him to contend upon this
demurrer that it was not allowable to have a literal and err
vile imitation of the uovel, as had been determined in the
Preach case. The learned counsel quoted a number of
mithorities in support of the propositions for which he had
**tended.
The court took time to omfatter the matter.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL
CAUBML—Ina. 18.
(Before the Judy Ordinary, Mr, Baron Martin, and Mr.
Judices WMes.)
NURAEY v. 1,11111311 T AND TI7CIOII.
In this part-board case additional evidence was tendered
by the husband, and • decree nisi was pronounced by the
court.
Mr. Baron Channel' then took the place of Mr. Baron
Martin.

HOOFER r. HOOFER.

L this rase Mrs. Hooper had sued for a judicial
oa the ground of cruelty. On the 16th
717=ther, 11439, the cause stood for hearing before
a special jury ; but an arrangement was Dame to by the
ormasel on both sides, and the record was withdown. This
aea~eosat woe, in fact, an agreement to refer the.... to
/tr. Kra. Hooper being Lauder the impreesioa that
she could give evidence of cruelty before that gentleman
with a view to IIKTIPSNI her alimony, and also with reference
to the question of with Mr. Brabout refused, however,
to put We construction upou the reference, and Mn.. Hooper
bad therefore attempted to proceed with her original peti.
tics ; bet the Judge Ordinary refused to emit her to do
so. this refusal the sow
Mr. Wm** and Mr. S. Hill appeared for the appellant.
Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., for the respondent, said his client
was reedy to pay the costa ; and, without further hearing
the heaped conned,
The court dramiesed the appeal.
RTDER T. RYDEN.

In this case cross petitions for a dissolution of the mar.
doge had been presented by the Hon. Fred. Dudley Ryder
and the Hem. Mary Anne Charlotte Ryder, his wife. The
primal use ea awed on behalf of Mrs. R der for an inte-
rim ardor as to tU custody of her children, in which no di-
versities wee gives as to the three eldest.
Hr. Seirjeast Pigott and Mr. MM, ueen appeared for the
appellant; Sir F. Slade, Q. 0., and Mr. Twiss for the re-
speedent.
1, was stated that the eldest child was a young lady
nearly of age, who lived with her uncle. The others wan
boys of 16 and 17, one of whom was in the navy, erd was at
weemt in China. The other wee in a merchant's osce In
Use City, and boarded in a clergyman's family.
The oust wee not concluded when the court adjourned.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—..TAN. 18.
(Before the Chief Commie'loner.)
I 4 RE TRORAN MASTER&

This insolvent, the well-known confectioner and hotel-
keeper, was opposed by Mr. Served for Mr. M•Lean,
looking-glue maker, Floet.street.
Mr. Bicker Caarten appenred fora creditor named Hol-
loway ; Mr. Robertson Griffiths supported.
The complaint on the part of Mr. M'Lean was a vexatious
defence. The parties had had transactions for some years,
and last year Mr. M`Lean sued the insolvent on his accept-
ance for 471., giving credit for 3/. paid. It was alleged that
certain articles had not beeu delivered, and three plata were
It w denied that any further article was to be
ici as
delivered. The ineolveot paid 25/. into court. Mr.
M•Lean obtained a verdict for the balance (211.) at an ex-
pire* of 731., and the question now raised was whether the
defence was a vexatious proceeding.
Mr. Bicker Caarten elected to reserve his opposition until
the next °amino°.
The Chief

adjourned the further bearing
until Thursday next, and gave no opinion on the point
raised.

In this cue the debts were 5,9091., and the credits 1,745/.
The insolvency wee attributed to hotel speculations.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)

AN ATTORNEY STRUCK OFT TRI ROWS OF THE COURT.
In the course of the day, the registrar, Mr. E. knew,
called the attention of the learned commissioner to a peti-
tion tiled yesterday by Mr. James Appleyani, an attorney,
on the part of an insolvent. That person had yesterday been
stmck off the rolls of this court by his honour, and no pa-
pers were to be received in the office from an aoconetent
named Costello, and he was desirous of knowing what
was to be dorm with the petition filed in the case he had
assetiosed.
Mr.

Nichols iequired whether the petition
wee filed by Mx. Appleyard before he ordered him to be
streak of die rolls of the court?

The Registrar said the petition uea filed some time
before._ . _

The court gave allowance to Yr. Appleyard to complete
the cue on the part of the insolvent Hall.

WHY BICAN GAS IN DAYTIK2 ? CNAPPtis'
Ilarizeron diffuse daylight la an dark piano. and at Risks save
SO poor mat. of sae —ragout. and tutaulautt.rar. P Otani:ls,
dR 11.4-eite.f. —tAdvertimawm.