The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 16.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Sir John Stuart.)
MOSEY V. JAMES-NOVELLO V. JAMES.
Mr. Mallins and Mr. C. Hall, on behalflof the de-
fendant in both suits, moved that it might be referred to
the chief clerk to assess the damages sustained by the
defendant by reason of the injunctions obtained by the
two plaintiffs against him to restrain the publication of
ten airs in the opera of Sonnambula, and also a piece of
music by Mendelssohn, called " Lieder ohne Worte,"
which that author had sold to one of the plaintiffs. The
defendant is the proprietor and publisher of a musical
work, published weekly, called The Pianists, in which,
in 1851, the music in question appeared. On the 6tl.
of August, 1851, Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce granted
an !.injunction to restrain the publication of the airs in
Sonnambula, taking from Mr. Boosey an undertaking to
answer in damages the amount of loss occasioned by the
injunction in case be should be unable to establish his
legal title. A similar order was obtained by Mr
Novello as to the music by Mendelssohn, upon the same
terms. At this time the Court of Exchequer Chamber,
in the case of Boosey r. Jeffries, had unanimously held
that an assignment of a foreign copyright was valid. An
appeal was carried in this case to the House of Lords,
who recently reversed the judgment in Boosey v.
Jeffries, the effect of which decision was that the assign-
ment to Mr. Novello ar.d Mr. Boosey was invalid ; the
injunctions were consequently dissolved. Under these
circumstances the suits were no longer sustainable. It
was stated in the affidavit that, in consequence of the in-
junctions, the defendant had sustained a loss of 3,0001.
Mr. Eimsley and Mr. C. M. Roupell, for Mr. Novello
and Mr. Boosey, now moved to dismiss the bills without
costs, on the ground that, according to the law as it was
settled at the time the bill was filed, the plaintiffs were
entitled to the injunction.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. H. Clarke appeared for the
plaintiff in the suit of Buxton v. James, which case,
however, was not disposed of.
The Vice-Chancellor said he should first dispose of the
motions to dispose of the bills without costs. The rule
of the Court was, in considering the question of costs,
that the person who upon the result of the litigation
turned out in the right should have his costs. These
cases, however, came on under extraordinary circum-
stances. The plaintiffs filed their bills to protect their
legal title, which had been established by a decision of
the Exchequer Chamber, the appellate court. They had
a right to treat the law as in their favour. At the same
time, it was well known that there was a contradiction in
the decision. The plaintiff did not rest on the legal de-
cision, but filed his bill in this court to establish his
equitable title. The Court granted an injunction, but on
such terms as clearly showed it was within the contem-
plation of the Court that the legal right might be diffe-
rently dealt with, a conclusion to which he (the Vice-
Chancellor) came from the circumstance that the Court
imposed the unusual terms of requiring from the plain-
tiffs an undertaking to abide by such order as this Court
might make with respect to damages. It was clear from
this order the Court foresaw that this view of the law
might be altered, and the prudence of that coarse was
apparent from what had happened. Now, what he was
asked to do by the plaintiffs was, to relieve them from
the costs of their suit. It was quite clear the Court in-
tended the plaintiffs, in the events that had happened,
to make some pecuniary compensation to the defendant.
He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that the bill ought
to be dismissed without costs. Then came the question
whether the plaintiffs were bound to make good to the
defendant the gain and profits which he might other-
wise have obtained. It was to be observed, however,
that the plaintiffs were in possession of what was shown
to be valuable property by a derivate title. It was true
that title had subsequently perished, but it was only
after a long and difficult litigation. Under those cir-
cumstances, he thought he ought not to go further
than to direct the plaintiffs to pay all the costs of
suit.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

THE QUEEN, EX PARTE PARR, V. BENNETT, FRITH, AND

TAYLOR.

Mr. Milward moved for a rule to show cause why a
criminal information should not be issued against the
defendants, the proprietors and publishers of Diogenes,
for inserting in that publication a. libellous article upon
the applicant. Mr. Parr was the vicar of Preston, in
Lancashire, perhaps the most populous parish in Eng-
land, the population there* being between 60,000 and
70,000 persons. At Easter last he was compelled to
enforce against certain of his parishioners, who were
Quakers, the payment of his customary dues, and the
money due was levied by distress upon their goods.
Diogenes had made this matter a subject of comment,
and had commented on it in a manner exceeding the
proper limits of fair observation. The article complained
of was entitled " Thoughts in Tatters, by a Ragged
Philosopher," and, beginning with a sort of comparison
between the pulpits of auctioneers and of parsons,
went on to make a violent personal attack on the appli-
cant, suggesting a resemblance between Craoket, a bur-
glar who broke into a man's house, and a parson who
entered it to seize his goods for rates and dues. The
learned counsel read the article from beginning to end,
and then stated that he bad affidavits which showed
that the defendants were liable as the publishers of the
paper.
I The Court granted the rule to show cause.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
IN UK DAVID ALLEN RAMSAY.

The bankrupt was a builder, of Kensingston-park-
terrace, and Notting-hill. His accounts, as prepared by
Messrs. J. and A. Young, extend from January 1, 1852,
to February 11, 1854, and contain the following items :
—Dr. Unsecured creditors, 11,4641. ; secured ditto,
139,6241., including the Commercial Bank of London,
26,0261. ; profits, 19,4641. ; capital January 1, 1852,
3,5141. Cr. Good debtors, 491. ; doubtful, 2,9691. ;
property, 2,3231. ; property held by creditors, 115,528 ;
depreciation in value of property held by creditors,
12,870/. ; law costs, 3,368 ; trade expenses, 9,425/ ;
domestic and personal expenses, 1,4891. ; losses,
25,9491.

Mr. Lowrance appeared for the bankrupt ; Mr. Po
cock for the assignees : Mr. Linklater for Mr. Samuel
Phillips, a creditor.
. _

After some discussion an adjournment of two months
was ordered,

IN RE W. CLERIC.

The bankrupt was a builder, of Snrbiton. This was
the last examination meeting. Ile bankrupt (who is
supposed to be in Australia) not being in attendance at
the usual hour was ordered to be proclaimed. In the
absence of accounts the state of the bankrupt's affairs is
roughly estimated at 20,0001. secured and 15,0001. un-
secured debts, the assets available towards the liquida-
tion of the latter being from 4,0001. to 5,0001.
Mr. Spinks represented the assignees.