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

which was executed on the I9th September, but it did
not appear by whom it was attested, a fact that should
have been supplied. A power of attorney was given to
Holt to act on behalf of Dire dale, to pay the creditors
at his discretion. The plaintiff had been employed by
the Baron, but there was no evidence to show that he
bad ever been employed by the son. Now this transac-
tion was necessarily mis-stated, because the prior facts
had been concealed. Holt, it appeared, bad 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-
tained the wri►. Since this motion he (the Vice-Chan-
cellor) had 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 bo so obtained what trustee was safe? Mr. Holt
had been arrested, and bad beea forced to put in bail.
Under these circumstances be should discharge the order
with costs, and had the undertaking bee❑ given be
should have directed a reference to the Master to impose
the damages. Ile thought he had never known an in-
stance in which the jurisdiction of the Court had been
more thoroughly abused.

v(Bofor© Sir JAMES PARKER.)
BOGUE V. HOULSTON AND ANOTHER—COPYRIGHT IN
ENGRAVINGS.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case. The mo-
tion was for an injunction to restrain the defendants,
Messrs. Houlston and Stoneman, publishers in Pater-
noster-r,-,w, 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 Fleetsstreet, alleged to have
been piratically copied from those made by artists whom
he had employed and paid. Mr. Bogue had annexed to
the designs in his book, which was entitled " The
Comical Creatures of SVirtemberg," a label or descrip-
tion 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 personce, 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. Philps,
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 ho 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. 11., 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 preprieter; and he
referred to the sth and 6.h Vict.. c. 45, giving him the
copyright of that book. The definition o' a book given
in the interpretation clause of this statute was as fel-
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 prints 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 book, of which he
had been registered as proprietor, the right to restrain
any imitation or infringement of his copyright. It ap-
peared to him that the term book included every part 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 s 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 arisen in
any of them—namely, whether, where there was a copy-
right in a book consisting of illustrations and designs, the
copyright did not extend to the illustrations andszlesigus,
unless the recognition cif the filth 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 hid, 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.
forMthr.eouwldaslikMert. to confer
Sw
defendants,aN s T ost (withsaid
hweh
so
m clients before the order was drawn up. His case was
that the copyright of the " book " was entirely distinct
1 .
with Bennet)
hiset)
Prow 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 01r. Reilly), for the
plaintiff, and that every one of the engravings was so
mixed up with the letterpress that they could not be se-
`prated.
.The-Vx14,7-C1!"4031 thought that ihe book brought
into-court,;: the publication of which was complained of,
wets min which- the defendants could not go on -
He thought the defendants' book, as it was now printed
—the letter-press and the engravings being mixed to-
gether—was one the defendant° had no right to sell.
The order for the injunction was therefore granted,
subject to the defendants' election of requiring, or waiv-
ing the action tit law.

ROLLS' COUUT Feb. 23.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY V. THE GREAT NuRTHERN 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
du:: out in the land on the Welland Canal, on the plain-
tiff's esrate from the canal, and from constructing upon
such land, containing 2 acres 6 poles, near Uffi .gton,
branch canal, or otherwise using such laud 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 oue. bal-
last fur 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 tho land.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER opposed the motion on the
ground that the company was prepared to carry out tha
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 works, whilst the plaintiff could suffer no
greater inconvenience by the opening of this short branch
line to Tallington station than his Lordship suffered
already from the vicinity of the Welland Canal, which
ran along his demesne, within 270 yards of Uffingtou
Manor Rouse and rectory. The Court would, therefore,
to prevent damage, resist the present application, and
send the material question in the cause by a special case
to the decision of a court of law.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said he saw no necessity
in this instance to exercise the power of the Court in
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 rate
of 3001. per acre. The Court ordered that a special case
be made out for. the opinion of the Court of Queen's
Bench, whether an action is maintainable for damages
for refusal on the part of the plaintiff to convey, on re-
quest thereto by the company, the said 2 acres 6 poles
to the company, the case to state preparation of convey-
ance and its presentation to the Earl, and his refusal to
convey; and also to admit that the company
exe-
cuted a formal deed of covenants in conformity
ofv;.March,
1846. The case to be settled by the Master, if the par-
ties disagree, with liberty to apply, if necessary, on
those matters again to this Court.
havieth
terms of the original agreement of the 16th the

hest
Bmtsphhoßaeaoneaoi_ricdrßkunekce(i
Samuel
ii
laihßrnesesoSß
ego:et
tßnfi
hmhfTlcooaeaeibeer,ero:l
iosiobru
12pLtwetteoct:erhfaitf,rm:doasessD02:meydn
meeting
c,Bruslfote.tSiohr.fiheonut.ts,oa.tTe2saitTtnßldplinßaBoodmoehgn,aTlrn4i/dartindreBrfctCrwmgior.oigts:rr
attorney
Thomas
sett
yHhrL..eftCOUßTh,iseeuacwebunhrl
n..
ellege2l
tie,
ct
d3i
aiodm.n:,sot.
brewer
efE.Orslnellnv:::edirEwiewwiorri BANK-
RUPTCY,
2,ti1i,:gdf:147..1 VI
C.
sgT:cTlCowroraio-it.l
.tIE.
will
RE WILLIAMS AND SONS, BANKERS,
_.
NEWPORT OLD Di•SiL•
9431 nees
6p p 0
the commissioner on the ground
pointed being rejected by
b
marriage with the bankrupts.
of their relationship y those they had ap-
pointed
by the appellate Court.
sergeantstep the Cwoausrt•i,opupetahleeidr
some preliminary observations,
on the other part, named Mr.
raTibnegehfTTautirihsshnheaedisitu:ster:cmsat:lb::ouainibrs(t)nenr:oeis°oln::gn:ih,npwo:r oet:tarceeeeraferldereesdha displacedd
'lyOi
tj with. Der. whArYl5l Beva n , o n the one
ra.ntoMx,r. Richard Seamark, of Monmouth-
side,
not
amount,
hzoymmet
ovbvroues.otnictenßeetdg:eouavont
inandnt handed
os
ntivedweonwetpder
oedapiwrnoe east
ow,
drnwes them;
rh:bui
ecuopwh:
0 n
when it appeared
attorney for 24,1001., and on old powers for 4,3841
alrndaAei
to th 4 Court.
brojok;e
His Hurroun decided that the old powers wore inad-
missible. Tho effect of this was to give the choice to
Mr. Bevan; and accordingly Messrs. Brewer and,Sda-
mark were chosen the new assignees.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Feb. 24.
(Before Mr. Commissioner LAW.)
IN RE JADIES R. ANDERSON.
In this 091 Mr.- Qualm Duce, -the roguish, """