The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-24 00:00:00

which wa.g executed on the 19th Sept.to:)er, but it .aid
not appear by whom it was attested, a fact that should
have been supplied. A power of attorney was given to
Holt to act ou behalf of Dinrdale, to pay the creditors
at his discretion. The plaintiff had been employed by
the Baron, but there was no evidence to show that he

had ever been employed by the son. Now this transac-
tion was necessarily mis-stated, because the prior facts
hsd been concealed. Holt, it appeaeed, had urged Dims-
dale to pay Appleyard, but he refused, and thereupon
Appleyard gave Holt notice not to part with the fund,
and yet he swore that he verily believed that Holt was
about to retain the money, and filed his bill and ob-

tailed the writ. Since this motion he (the Vice-Chun•
color) bad learned a wholesome rule of one branch of
this Court—viz., upon applications of this nature to call

upon the applicant to give an undertaking to answer in
damages, and had he been aware of it he should have
followed this wholesome rule. If such writs as this
could be so obtained what trustee was safe? Mr. Holt
had been arrested, and had been forced to put in bail.
Under these circumstances ho should discharge the order
with costs, and had the undertaking been given he
should have directed a reference to the Master to jai/m:0
the damages. Ile thought he had never known an in-
stance in which the jurisdiction of the Court had been
more thoroughly abused.
(Before Sir JAMES PARKER.)
BOGUE U. HOULSTON AND ANOTHER—COPYRIGHT IN
ENGRAVINGS.

His Hoteoun gave judgment in this case. The mo•
tion was for an injunction to restrain the defendants,
Messrs. Houlston and Stoneman, publishers in Pater•
noster-row, from publishing a book which contained
designs or drawings from groups of animals taken from
the Exhibition of last year, which the plaintiff', Mr.
Bogue, the publisher in Fleet-street, alleged to have
been piratically copied from those made by artists whom
he bad employed and paid. Mr. Bogue had annexed to
the designs in his book, which was entitled " The
Comical Creatures of Wirtemberg," a label or descrip.
don to each design, and accompanying the designs were
letter-press illustrations consisting of stories connected
with the figures. The defendants published a smaller
book, containing stories which related to the same
dramatis persona, or groups, with different stories from
those of Mr. Bogue, but illustrated by the same designs,
which he alleged to be piratical copies of designs taken
from his book. This was positively denied by the
defendants, who alleged that they, or Mr. Philp,
for whom they published, had paid artists
to make original drawings of the groups of animals. His
Honour said that on inspection of the designs themselves,
and upon a careful perusal of the evidence, he had come
to the conclusion that the drawings published by the de-
fendants had been copied from those of Mr. Bogue. They
had not only copied his designs, but they had copied the
descriptiVe labels which the plaintiff had annexed to the
designs. Under these circumstances he entertained no
doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction.
But it had been argued that Mr. Bogue had not esta-
blished his title to a copyright in the designs in question,
inasmuch as he had not complied with the requisitions of
the Bth Geo. IL, c. 13, which was the existing statute re-
gulating the copyright of prints and engravings; which
provided that the date of the publication and the name of
the proprietor must be truly engraved upon the plate from
which the engraving was made. That Act of Parliament
had been extended by two other Acts of Geo. 111. It was
admitted on the part of the plaintiff that the Act of Bth
Geo. 11. was that which now regulated the law with respect
to the copyright in designs; but the plaintiff said that
his publication was a " book," and that it was entered
at Stationers' Hall in his name as the proprietor; end he
referred to the sth and 6th Vice.. c. 45, giving him the
copyright of that book. The definition ot• a book given
in the interpretation clause of this statute was as fol-
lows:—" Any volume, part, or division of a volume,
pamphlet, sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, map,
chart, or plan, separately, published." No doubt this did
not extend to priats or designs, separately published;
but where the prints or designs formed part of the book,
although it contained, in addition, letter-press, the print
or design being an illustration of the letter-press, the
statute vested in the proprietor of that beok, of which he
bad been registered as proprietor, the right to restrain
any imitation or itifringeteent of his copyright. It up-
peered to him that the term book included every pert of
the book, including the engravings and designs, as well
as the letter-press. It might be very true that prints
published separately were not within that Act of Parlia-
ment by express definition; but the case before the
Court was not that of a print published separately, but
part of a book. He was not aware that there was any
decision of a court of law either way upon this point.
He had attended carefully to the authorities referred
to by the defendants' counsel, but it did not ap•
pear that the question before the Court had erisen in
any of them—namely, whether, where there was a copy-
right in a book consisting of illustrations and designs, tan
copyright did not extend to the illustrations and designs,
unless the reougnition of the ith Geo. 11. by the Acts of
Geo. 111. applied to them. In the absence of any deci-
sions, he thought the correct and obvious construction of
the sth and 6th Viet., c. 45, was, that where there were
designs or illustrations forming part of a book, of which
book a party had a copyright, that copyright extended
to the designs as well as to the letter-press. He must,
therefore, decide that Mr. Bogue was entitled to an in-
junction, in the terms of the notice of motion. The de-
fendants bad, however, a right to put the plaintiff to
bring his action at law; the injunction must issue, the
defendants requiring the plaintiff to bring his action at
law, or it being stated that the defendants waived their
right to insist on this being done.
Mr. SWANNTON (with whom was Mr. W. H. Bennet)
for the defendants, said he should like to confer with his
clients before the order was drawn up. His case was
that the copyright of the " book " was entirely distinct
from the copyright in the " engravings." The plaintiff
might be entitled to restrain the publication of the en-
gravings, but not the sale of the book without the en-
gravings.
Mr. CRAIG (with whom was Mr. Reilly), for the
plaintiff, and that every one of the engravings was so
mixed up with the letterpress that they could not be se-
parated.
The VICE •CHANCELLOR thought that the book brought
into court, the publication of which was complained of,
was one which the defendants could not go on selling.
Ile thought the defendants' book, as it was now printed
—the letter-press and the engravings being mixed to-
gether—was one the defendants had right to sell.
'rho order for the injunction was therefore granted,
subject to the defendants' election of requiring, or waiv-
• the action at law.

ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 23.

THE EARL OF LINDSAY V. THE GREAT NORTHERN RAIL•

WAY COMPANY.

Mr. LLOYD moved for an injunction to restrain the
company from cutting away, breaking down, or removing
the earth which now separates the water upon the spaces
dug out in the land on the Welland Canal, on the plain-
tiff's estate from the canal, and from constructing upon
such land, containing 2 acres 6 poles, near LTffington, a
branch canal, or otherwise using such land than autho-
rised by agreement for temporary purposes, specified in
the company's notice of 23d November, 1850. It ap-
peared that this company had, under agreement, used
and applied that land to the purpose of digging ou: bal-
last for their railway, and a large space of it became
filled with water, which the company now threatened to
make into a canal to communicate with the Welland
Canal, and take goods and coals to their railway station
at Tallington, a project which would be injurious to the
plaintiff's mansion at Uffington, and the rectory adjoin-
ing, of which the Earl is the patron. The plaintiff had,
therefore, applied for an injunction to restrain the com-
pany from proceeding to make this use of the land.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALUER opposed the motion on the
ground that the company was prepared to carry out the
objects of which they had given formal notice to the
Plaintiff, and that if the Court should restrain them
there would be a great loss incurred by the interrup-
tion of the work% whilst the plaintiff could suffer no
?Tauter Ines-A-reale-nee by the rspstaiur.s of hurt 1 rauz.4l
line to 'Nile station then hi, L'irdahip
alrecdy troro the 61=inity of the WeDacia Canal, which
ran 'lout hi, decui,;,lle, -yards of trfilligoe
Manor t:nd rectory. The Court ~could, ther.tc,re,
to Peter 4, dums:ge, the present application, and
send the material question in the cause by a :special ease
to the decision of a court of law.
The MASTER of the ROLLS sail he saw no necessity
in this instance to exercise the power of the Court iu
making the interim order perpetual, the company under-
taking to abide by any future order of this Court as to
damages or otherwise, and paying within fourteen days
the purchase money of the land in qUestion at the
caserate
of 3001. per acre. The Court ordered that a special Queen's
be made out for the opinion of the Court of
Bench, whether au action is maintainable for duina f,es
for refusal on the part of the
plaintiff 2 acres 6 poles
to convey, on re-
quest thereto by the company, the said , • !I of „„„y.
to the company, the case to state prepsiatto
ance and its presentation to the Eaerle,oainnpdahnyis
have
refusalhextheto;
convey; and also to admit that th
cuted u formal deed of covenants in conformity
terms of the original agreement o f the 16th of March,
par-
-1846. The case to be settl
ties disagree, with lierty to apply, if necessary, ou
these matters again tot his Court.

ANK.

BRISTOL DISTRICT COURT OF B-
BRISTOL Feb. 23,
(Before Commissioner BANKERS,Sergeant STEPHEN.)
RE WILLIAMS AND SONS,
NEW2ORT OLD BANK.
This was a meeting for the choice of new assignees
in the room of those already appointed, and who, it will
be remembered, were displaced by the Court on their
refusal to nominate fresh solicitors, those they had up.
pointed being rejected by the commissioner on the ground
of their relationship by marriage with the bankrupts.
This decision of Mr. Sergeant Stephen
against, but confirmed by the appellate Cwe's appealed
Court.
This morning, after some preliminary observations,
the choice was proceeded with. Mr. Bevan, on the uue
Thomasside. nominated Mr. Thomas I l
brooks Vale, and Mr. Richard.' Seamark,lveillp'brewer, of Coal.
of Monmouth-
shire; and Mr. Fox On the other part, named Mr.
Samuel Homfrayo,forit'ißedtw.elty-liouse, Mr. Edward Scott.
Buck Barber, and Mr. William 'Pre-
harp© Rees, of Bachelor.tin
rißseat'

Oa the powers of attorney being handed in, which
took some time in doing, the accounts were cast up,
when it appeared that Mr. Fox voted on new powers of
attorney for 24,1001., and on old powers for 4,3841.
making a total of 28,4841. Mr. Bevan voted on new
powers for 27,8791., and did not vote on old powers, but
said he held them to a large amount, and tendered them
to the Court.
His Hotiourt decided that the old powers ware load-
missible. The effect of this was to give the choice to
Mr. Bevan; and accordingly Messrs. Brewer and Sea-
mark were chosen the new assignees.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 24.
(Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.)
IN RE JAMES R. ANDERSON.
ILI this case Mr. Charles Dance, the registrar, has