The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-06 00:00:00

Mr. Edward Morton—Was the brother of the plaintiff,
and resided with him. Witness was living with him in
1837, and remembered his being engaged in composing a
farce, which, when completed, he called The Spitfire.
Witness saw him from time to time during the progress of
the work, and saw parts of it in manuscript. It was sub-
sequently printed and published by the plaintiff. It was
printed and published by him through the Dramatic Authors'
Society. The published work was the same as that which
witness had seen in manuscript.
Cross-examined—Witness did not know whether the
proprietorship of the work belonged to the Dramatic Au-
thors' Society. It was an adaptation of a French piece.
Witness did not assist the author in the composition.
The fact of the performance of the Spitfire at Southamp-
ton by defendant was proved by Mr. Edwards, a solicitor,
and by Mr. Butler, who had played there in the piece as
Captain Shortcut.
Mr. WHATELEY, on the part of the defendant, contended
that the plaintiff here could not claim to be the author of
the piece, he was the mere translator of and adapter of it.
He could not, therefore, maintain the action.
Lord DENMAN told the Jury that the question which
they must consider was, whether the plaintiff had, in fact,
proved the allegation in his declaration, that he was the
author of this farce, and was entitled to claim damages for
a representation of it taking place without his consent. If
that question was answered by them in the affirmative, then
it would be dear that he was entitled to the benefit of the
Act which had been lately passed, and which gave to
dramatic authors rights that they did not before possess.
The main question for the Jury to decide was, whether, in
fact, the plaintiff was the author of the farce. It he was,
he was entitled to maintain the action, unless he should be
proved to have parted with his interest in the work. There
was no proof that he had done so. It was clear, therefore,
if the first question was answered in the affirmative, that
the case fell within the provisions of the Act, and that the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 5.
LEACH V. M`BAIN.
This was an action for disturbing the plaintiff's peaceable
possession of premises which he rented of the defendant.
Mr. HUMPHREY and Mr. JONES were Counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant BoateAs and Mr. RICHARDS
for the defendant.
The plaintiff was an old man of' more than seventy years
of age, who took lodgings in a house in Newman's-row.
Lincoln's Inn-fields, which belonged to the defendant; and
the action was brought to recover compensation in damages
for annoyances to which he and his family had been exposed
by the wilful misconduct of the defendant's servant. It ap-
peared that the house was kept by a Mrs. Harris, and the
plaintiff's complaint was that, during the months of Decem-
ber, 1837, and January and February, IS3B. she had
taken the staircase windows completely away, had taken
the lock off the kitchen door, so as to prevent its be-
ing fastened, and had resorted to other modes of annoy-
ance. The answer of the defendant was, that the plaintiff's
family were not cleanly in their habits, and that it was
thought necessary, not only by Mrs. Harris, but by other
lodgers, that these windows should be entirely taken away
during the day, for the purpose of purifying the air. It
was admitted by the plaintiff's witnesses that the windows
were closed during the night. Witnesses were examined
on each side, and their testimony on many points was di-
rectly conflicting.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Summed up the case to the
Jury, vvho found a verdict for the plaintiff--Damages 40s.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, DEC. 5.
ACCOMMODATION BILLS.
Cohn Baxter Greenhill, a clerk in the Ordnance Depart-
ment, Pall-mall, was opposed in person by Mr. Pocock, a
tailor, residing in Lombard-street, who applied for a portion
of the insolvent's salary, for the benefit of his creditors.
Mr. Commissioner BowEN said the best thing he could
do was to recommend to the heads of the office that 201.
a-year be set aside for the benefit of his creditors, to com-
Mence after the next followinc, quarter.
The insolvent was then ordered to be discharged.