The Sun.
London, England, 1814-06-14 00:00:00

PAYMENTS.

Floit Payment . hiursdayiti . L.lO. o 0 per Cent
2 Do. . 22 July . 10 0 0 D(i.

3 Do. . moodily 29 Ang' List- 15 0 0 Do.
4 Do. . it; September. 10 0 0 Do.

5 Do. . -Friday 21 October 15 • 0 0 , Do.
q Du. . Friday is November 10 0. 0 Do.
7 Du. . Friday 23 December 10 0 0 Doe:
S Do. . Friday . 20 Jan. 1131.5 10 0 0 Do.
Last Du. . Friday 17 February 10 0. 0 Do,

L.lOO
TIMINGS OF TIM DIFFEI:ENT LISTS.

M•essrs,•BarneN, Steers, and Ricardo
. Baring., .. .. J . Anzerstein, and L. 23 10 3 per Cent.
(;.Ward; lcarwis, Ellis,:and Consols.
• Co. and 'Tower and Battyc
At one o'clock the subjaiqed was the price of
Stocks
Consols . 72 7il 721 . . • Reduced . 70 714. lat

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENC:II, JUNE 13

COPYRIGIIT.

POWER V. WAKER.

This was .an action charging Mr. Walker, the
music-sellci, with pirating from Mr. Power, also
a music-seller, of the Strand, the words atid music
of the two very popular airs, "Fig not Vet-;" and •
" Evelyna's ,Bower," written and set to ,music by
Anacreon Moore. It was proved- by iii r. Moore,
at the trial, that Mr. Power, of Dtiblin, had the
copyright of them; and -that they bad been ver-
bally assigned by that Gentleman to his biother;
Mr. Power, of London.. Upon this, the ATTORNEY-
Gr NcirAe, for the defendant, stibinitted that Mr. P.
had no right.of action, he not possessing a vlo-itteir
assignment-; and Lord EeeErsißono.P.GEl holding
the objection good, a nonsuit was entered.
Mr. Twtss anoved for a Rule, to sheW cause
why this nonstiit should trot be set aside, and, a
new trial granted. If his motion were granted,
he hoped to be able to shcw that copyright was a
mere personal chat telthat it was not included in
any of the Statutes of Frauds ; and that, like
other personal chattels, no written assignment
was necessary—that oral transfer was stifEcierit.
The Bth Anne, chap.-19, secured the copyright to
authors ; and by a liberal construction of that
Act, which vas avowedly " for the better encou-,
ragement of Learning," he trusted- he ;Amid(' be
able to make out, that the Legislature never con-
templated the enforcement of written assignment.
There was nothing in tolle word " as
used in the Act; which implied, that it, must be
done in writing.' From the great case of " Mil-
ler v. Taylor," it did not appear that an assign-
ment was necessary to he in writing ; besides, the
general practice established the contrary, as it-
was quite unusual for the assignments from the
author to the publisher to be made in wiitin,,,s
but if lie obtained his Rule, lie hoped to be able
to sliew,, on the broad prificiple, that copyright
was a mere personal chattel, and that, like all-
other personal chattels, it was capable of being'
transferred by oral communication. ,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, the mere_possessio
of a work did not give the right 'to publish—the
consent to do that must be had in writing. To
recognize the principle now contencled for, would
be productive of the greatest -inconvenience, far
fifty people might then appear on any question 0.
.copyright, each contending, i.:nd perhaps prov-
ing, that they all had the author's leave' to ,
publish.
Mr. TWISS hoped also to be able to answer the
argument as to the inconvenience of theprinciple,
and to shew that it' lay the other way : for suo-
, posing Mr. Power to have 2 or 300 songs, _
the words being by one person, and tlee 'inttsic
by another; if art oral transfer would not secure
the property, there must be tWieas many trans-
fers.

Mr. Justice DANIPIER--" By holding o many
copyrights, he is'a dealer in rights -of action, and
therefore it behoved him to he able to niAc out
his title to the property,, according to recognised
principles. how would he otherwise make out
title. 1"

14r. TwiSs—" By possession and prior publi-
cation." .

Lord ELLEtiu.ogo,uGn.siid, that it had always
been held .necessary for the assignment to,be in
writing, and he could not think that the Legisla-
ture, while it said that written :aksignments v'ere

-.necessary, would consider its meaning. fulfilled by
receiving as law oral transfers. To, establish the
contrary principle would be dangerous, particu-
larly to authors. To his mind the conclusion was
irresistible, that if. the Legislatnre thought it
right' to require permission• to assign to, be in
writing, it certainly meant •it to be utiders.tood.
that the transfer of the whale should also be in
writing. The contrary pi:inciple would' be pro-
ductive of no benefit, but much danger and.
mischief.—R tile refused. 7 .
Mr. Twiss loped the. Court would excuse hin.
if he inquired, after what had been,said, whether
their Lordships considered the copyright to rest
with the, original proprietor "?.
Lord ELLENBOROUCH replied, that they were
only judges on the case before them—they were
. ni.)t of Counsel for the Clients of Mr. Twiss.