The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CuornoN, AUG. 22.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell and a Special Jury.)
SEMAN V. COPELAND.

This was an action to recover damages, in the shape of
penalties, from the defendant, who is the proprietor of the
Royal Amphitheatre, at Liverpool, for having played a
piece called " Jessie Brown, or the Relief of Lucknow," at
his theatre without the consent of the plaintiff, who was the
author. The defendant pleaded that the drama in question
was not the property of the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lawton were counsel
fcr the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Murray were
for the defendant,

Mr. Chambers said the plaintiff in this action was a dra-
matic author, and although he had not obtained a high cele-
brity in that position, he had,nevertheless,been the author of
a great many successful dramas that had been played at seve-
r»! of the minor theatres in London, and at different country
theatres. The defendant was the proprietor of the Royal
Amphitheatre, at Liverpool; and the action was brought
against him by the plaintiff for having played one of his
pieces a number of nights at his theatre without his permis •
Mon. The act of Parliament that was passed upon this sub-
ject entitled the plaintiff under these circumstances to all
the profits that were derived from such performances; but
it also enacted that certain penalties might be enforced, and
the object of the present action was to recover from the de-
fendant 26 penalties of 405. each. The defendant answered
the action by asserting that the play in question was writ-
ten by an author of much higher position in the theatrical
world than the plaintiff, viz., Mr. Dion Boucicault, and he
shielded himself under what he could only describe as a
most unjust act. The namo of the plaintiff's piece was
" Jessie Brown, or the Relief of Lucknow," and the subject
was derived from the melancholy proceedings connected
with that siege and the romantic incident of a Highland
girl, who was made the heroine of the piece, Jessie Brown,
hearing the approach of the Highlanders under General
Havelock when the garrison was almost at the last extre-
mity. This piece was sold to Mr. Lane, of the Britannia
Theatre, Heaton, and was played a great number of nights,
and the plaintiff was paid the usual sum as the author. It
was afterwards played at other theatres, and the plaintiff
had no idea that his drama had been pirated until he read
an announcement in the Eta, a newspaper that devoted a
good deal of attention to theatrical matters, that a piece
under the same name, the author of which was stated to be
Mr. Dion Boucicault, was being played in America, the
part of the heroine being performed by Miss Robinson, a
lady whom Mr. Boucicault had since married. Mr. Bouci-
cault subsequently came to England, and produced the
celebrated play of the " Collen Bawn," and at this time he
published a list of the pieces of which he claimed the
authorship, cautioning managers of theatres not to pee-
form them without his sanction, and among them was
this play of " Jessie Brown, or the Relief of Luck-
now." A quarrel having taken place between Mr. Web-
ster and Mr. Boucicault, the latter went to Drury-lane
Theatre, at which establishment he brought out this piece
of " Jessie Brown, striking out, however, the surname
of Brown, and calling it " Jessie, or the Relief of Lucknow."
He should show them that this piece and the one written
by the plaintiff were identical in almost every respect, and
it appeared that Mr. Boucicault had given his sanction to
the present defendant playing the same drama at his theatre
at Liverpool. The present action was therefore brought
for the purpose of putting a stop to the plagiarism and
pirating that had been going on, and if his learned friend
did not call Mr. Boucicault as a witness to give some
explanation to the jury, it appeared to him that his omitting
to do so must be taken as an admission of the "soft im •
peachment" that he had been guilty of cribbing and pirating
the work of the plaintiff.

Mr. Edward Stirling, stage manager of Drury-lane
Theatre, proved that in the month of June, 1862, the drama
called " Je.lsie, or the Relief of Lucknow," was performed
at that theatre. He went to Liverpool in Nover-ber for the
purpose of superintending the production of the same piece
at the Royal Amphitheatre, belonging to the defendant
The drama was produced on the 15th November, and it was
the same piece that was played at Drury-lane. The wit-
ness tIJI identified a manuscript that was handed to him as
a copy of the manuscript of the
piece that was played at
Drury-lane and at Liverpool.
Cross-earninecl—Previonsly to the piece being played he
had seen the American printed edition. Mr. Boucicault
wrote another act to that edition and heightened the parts,
as it was termed in theatrical phraseology, and several new
characters were introduced. The drama was taken from
one of the incidents of the Indian mutiny. when the garrison
of Lucknow having lost all hope of relief, Jessie Brown—a
young Highland girl—heard the approach of the bagpipes
of the Highlanders, under General Havelock, coming to
their succour. All the other incidents led up to that. In
Mr. Boucicault's piece the action commenced in India. In
the plaintiff's diama the scene commenced in Scotia/16,
where Jessie was the servant of a Mrs. Campbell, the
wife of en officer, They all go to India, where

the husband died, and Nana Sahib was introduced,
but not by that name. It was thought that he would be
too repulsive to an English audience, and he was called
Uhoolam Singh. He was supposed to make love to Mrs.
Campbell, who repulsed him, and in consequence of this he
is supposed to persecute the British. Tho mutiny then
breaks out, and the parties are all at Lucknow, and at the
last moment Jessie hears the bagpipes. Two comic cha-
racters were introduced in the plaintiff's drama—Mr. Sniffles
and Mr. Ginger, and there was no character of this kind in
the drama of Mr. Boucicault. He considered there was no
resemblance between the two pieces until they got to the
fcurth act, and then the incidents were necessarily the same.
There was no Nona Sahib in the plaintiff's piece, but there
was a similar character called Mahound, the butcher of
Cawnpore. In that piece also two Highland farmers were
supposed to go out after Jessie.
Baron Bramwell—Why ?
Mr. Lush—l dont know, my lord. (Laughter.)
The witness said they were her lov2rs, and supposed to
follow her to India.
Re-examined—He had only read the plaintiff's drama
cursorily, and he did not discover that the two comic cha-
racters in it had been rolled into one comic Irishman in Mr.
Boucicault's piece.
Baron Bramwell—Two Scotchmen rolled into one Irish-
man I (Laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—Yes, my lord. That's what we say.
Mr. Semen, the plaintiff, was then called. He said that
he was an actor, and also wrote for the stage, and in 1857
he wrote the drama of " Jessie Brown, or thx: Relief of
Lucknow," which was played at the Britannia Saloon,
Hoxton, and was very successful, and ran for three months.
Ho did not know that a piece under the same title was being
played in America until he read a statement to that effect in
the newspaper ; but he could not, of course, then interfere.
Some time afterwards Mr. Boucicault, who represented
himself to be the author of that piece, came to England,
and he wrote to him upon the subject, but did not receive
any reply. He went to Drury-lane to see the piece per-
formed, and from the rising of the curtain till it dropped,
ho considered that his own idea of the Scotch girl was ap-
parent throughout the whole piece. The witness went on
to deny that he had got the idea from a newspaper, but he
admitted that his drama only consisted of two acts, which
occupied an hour and five minutes in playing, while that of
Mr. Boucicault was in four acts, and occupied three hours
and a half.

Baron Bramwell here inquired of Mr. Lush what his case
was ?

Mr. Lush replied that his case was that the two pieces
were entirely dissimilar, and the idea of each was merely
derived from a report of the incident which appeared in the
newspapers at the time, one of which he produced.
The plaintiff was then cross-examined at some length.
He denied that ho took the idea of his piece from the news-
papers, and said he thought he got it from a song. He said
he took lus " idea" to Mr. Lane, of the Britannia Theatre,
and he approved of it, and purchased his drama. His piece
had never been printed, and he had never seen the printed
drama of Mr. Boucicault.

Mr. Lush then read a portion of the newspaper report, and
the plaintiff, after some hesitation, was obliged to admit, or
it was at all events apparent, that the expressions made use
of by Jessie in his drama were the very same that appeared
in that report. He also admitted that the final tableau in
his drama was copied entirely from a picture in the Illus-
trated Times, and in his own manuscr.pt he referred to that
picture as a copy.
Mr. Chambers said this was his case:
Mr. Lush said it appeared to him that there was no case
at all to answer.

Baron Bramwell said he should like to know what the
jury thought of it.
The jury said they were unanimously of the same opinion.
Mr. Chambers said as this was the case he should elect to
ho nonsuited, and
The plaintiff was accordingly called.
Baron Bramwell expressed his opinion that it was scan-
dalous that such an action should have been brought, and it
appeared to him that there was not the slightest foundation
for it.

There are &ill 30 common jury canses remaining to be
disposed of. There are three special jury causes remaining,
and it has been arranged that the case of " Woolley v.
role" shall not be taken until Tuesday.