The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.--AUGUST 1.

JEFFREYS V. BOOSE f.-THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT IN

RELATION TO FOREIGNERS.

This case came before their lordships on a writ of
error from a deci.•ion of the Court of Exchequer cham-
ber, which court had overruled a decision of the Court of
Exchequer, on a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the
presiding judge at nisi pries in an action brought
Mr. Boosey, a music-seller, against Charles Jefferys,
another member, for infringement of copyright in a
piece of music. A bill of exceptions was tendered to the
ruling of the learned judge, anti a writ of error was
brought in the Exchepier Chamber, which was argued
after Easter Term, 1851, when the ecurt held that the
direction of the learned judge was erroneous, and that
there ought to be a new trial. The present writ of
error was then brought, as against that judgment.
Toe Lord Chancellor, at the termination of the argu-
ments, submitted the following questions for the consi-
deration and opinion of the learned judges ; namely,
" F►rstly. Vincenzo Bellini, an alien, living at Milan,
was possessed of a literary work in which, according to
the laws of Milan, he had a certain copyright, the nature
and extent of which did not appear, and lie on the 19th
of February, 1831, by an instrument in writing of that
saute dete, ❑ot executed io the pros nce of or attested by
two witnesses, assigned his copyright to Giovanni
Ricordo, which as,igninent was valid by the laws of
Milan. Giovanni Ricordi come to this country, and on
the 9th of Julie, IS3I, by a deed executed in the presence
of, and attested by two witnesses, for a valuable consi-
deration, as-igne I his copyright to the dtfindant in
error, his heirs, &c:, but only for puhlication in this
country. Tile plaintiff in error, without any license
from the defendant in error, published the said literary
woik. Under these circumstances, did such a publica-
tion give a right of action to the defendant in error ?
secondly—lf the assignment by Behind to Ricordo
had been made by a deed attested by two witnesses,
would that have made any and what difference ?
"Thirdly—lf Bellini, instead of making an assign-
ment to Ricordo while lie was living at Milan, had made
the assignment to the defendant in error at Milan in the
same manner as he did to Ricordo, would it have made
any and what difference ?

;.` Fourthly—lf the work had been printed and
published at Milan before the asssignment to the de-
fendant in error, would it have made any and what
difference ?

" Fifthly—lf the work had been printed and pub-
lished at Miia❑ after the assignment to the defendant in
error, but before pub ication in this country, would it
have made any and what difference ?
" Lastly—lt the assignment had not been 1 mited to
puTdication in this country, would it have ma any and
what difference ?"

The learned judges, after taking time to consider, de-
livered their opinions seriatim.
Mr. Justice Crompton, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr.
Justice Erie, Mr. Justice Wi,tlittnan, Mr. Justice Mamie,.
and Mr. Justice Coleridge, expressed the opinion that
the publication in this country by Jeffreys, the plaintiff
in error, gave the defendant in error, Boosey, a right of
action against him, inasmuch as that the assignment of
the copyright and property therein w..s a complete and
valid assignment.

Lord Chief 'Justice Jervis, the Chief Baron, Mr.
Baron Parke, and Mr. Baron Alderson, intimated a
contrary opinion.

Theit:loi.dships then took time to consider the judg
ment of the house, and this morning gave their deei

810ti.9.
Tne Lord Chancellor, in delivering his opinion, stated
the facts of the case, and the circumstances under which
the action was brought, and proceeded to say that the
question for their lordships' consideration was, whether
the directiongiven by him when sitting at nisi prius, as a
Baron of the Court of Exchequer, to the jury on the
trial in that court, and which had been decided by the
Court of Exchequer Chamber to be erroneous, was or
was not correct. Their lordships had obtained the
assistance of ten of the learned judges, to whom they
were greatly indebted for their able and elaborate judg
merits. Six of these judges were of Opinion that the
copyright had been effectually assigned to the defendant
in error, while f .ur of their lordships were of the con
trary opinion. The in,jerity of the judges, therefore,
were 01 opinion that his direction was wrong, arid that
the Court of Exchequer Chamber was right in reversing
his derision, and ordering a venire de novo. He should
have been girel if he had not had to deal with his own
direction to the jury, but he would not shrink from the
duty now imposed on him, and he would proceed to
support the opinion he had expressed in the court
below. Copyright, or the exclusive right of multiplying
copies of a work, was now regulated entirely by statute;
the principal acts being the Bth Anne, c. 19, and the
53,1 George 111., c. 156, but the act of Anne was the
only one ta which their attention need- be directed, as
the 53d George 111. only provided for an extension of
the time for which copyright was held. The preamble
of the statute of Anne declared its object to be the en•
couragement of the publication of useful books, and it
granted to an author or his aisiAns, the sole liberty of
printing and publishing a work for a period of fourteen
I years from the day on which it was first published.
Tine question was whether the words of the statute re-
ferred only to British authors, or were applicable to
the authors of any country. Inn his, opinion they re-
ferred to British authors only. The object of the statute
was national, and the nrivilee•bes it conferred on a
•
certain class of persons were intended f,-r the benefit of
this country. What he meaht by this was, that it was
applicable to all persons residing within the Queen's do-
minions, and owning allegiance to her ; and a foreigner
residing in this country, arid composing arid pub•
lisping a work here, was within the urea ing of the
statute. Nay he w till go further, and say tila; if a
foreigner came to this country with a work, and the day
after he arrived published the work in this country, he
would be within the statute. If the publication as an
overt act took place in this country, a foreigner far that
purpose was a British author, wherever the work might
be c'imposed. This opinion he founded ou the general
principle that the legislature in passing these statutes
meant rrri,uk facie to legislate for British authors, beifl
British subject only. II there had been authority aglinst
him on this point he should have yielded to it, but no
direct authority on the subject was to be found. His
lordship then examined the difKrent cases which had
been cited iii the course of tire argument, and showed
that none of them hail any direct bearing on this case so
as to be quoted as authorities to influence his decisi n.
He therefore agreed with the minority of the four judges
and he shout I move their lordships that the judgmeut of
the Court of Exchequer be reversed.
Lord Brougham, in a very elaborate and exhaustive
judgment, expressed his connurrence in the opinion of
the Lord Chancellor, and laid it down as clear that
Bellini had no copyright in the work in qu6stion beyond
his own territory, and that his assignee could take no-
thing which would benefit him in this action, and that
a man holding a copyright in Milan had no copyright in
the same work in Eugland.