The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-28 00:00:00

MARKET NEWS.-(THIS DA Y.)

CORN-EXCHANGE—WEDNESDAY
A very limited quantity of English Wheat was on
sale in to•day's market. Still, however, as the attend-
ance of buyers was small, and the arrivals from abroad
extensive, the demand ruled heavy, at barely Monday's
quotations. Upwards of 10,000 quarters of Foreign
Wheat have come to hand this week, and the show this
morning was on the increase. All kinds moved off
heavily, at unaltered currencies. The supply of Eng-
lish Barley was trifling, that of Foreign large. All de-
scriptions met a very dull inquiry, at the late decline.
Malt, both old and new, sold heavily, but we have no
change to notice in value. For Oats the inquiry was
confined to retail parcels, at previous figures. Beans,
Peas, Indian Corn, and Flour very dull.

ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.

Wheat,

Barley.

Oats

Malt. I Flour.

Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Qrs.
SEO 460 220 920

English • • • • • •
Scotch • •

—w....... ..... -
Irish .. .. .. .. — 1,04$
F0reign......1 10,080 24,450 32,610

110111.OUGH ZIOP DELLIIKET.

Sacks
890

Fine Hops, the supply of which is small, move off
freely, at fully last week's prices. In other kinds very
little business is doing'.

VPHITECII/LPEL.

Although the supplies of Meat were large, the general
demand was firm, at full prices. Beef, from 2s 8.1 to
3s 8d; Mutton, 2s 10d to 3s 10d; Veal, 3s 4d to 4s;
and Pork, 3s 4d to 45 2d per Sibs., by the carcase.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

The Lord Chancellor sat again today in the Old Hall,
Lincoln's Inn, to hear appeals.

CHAMBERS V. SIGGERS-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, the arguments on which were concluded yes-
tfirday. The case came before the Court upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England.
directing ale trial of an issue. The plaintiff, Captain
Alan Chambre, of Burnley, in Lancashire, applied, in
the end of 1846, to Mr. Paynter, then a solicitor, living
in James-street, Bedford-row, for ii loan of money on
his acceptance. Mr. Poynter said he had a friend who
could accommodate him, and Chambre then accepted a
bill for 2001. in favour of Payntor. No money was forth-
coming, and Paynter left Loridon in a state of insolvency,
after repeatedly promising to return the bill ; and i❑
about a month Chambre received notice from Siggers
that he held it for a consideration, and expected payment.
The suit was instituted to have the bill delivered up to
be cancelled, and for an injunction to stay proceedings
at law; and the Vice Chancellor, on an allegation of
Siggers in his answer, that ho bad discounted the bill
fur Paynter and paid him SOL in money, and released a
debt for 1101., directed an issue, to ascertain what money
bad passed between Siggers and Paynter, and from this
judgment the present appeal was brought. His Lordship
ordered the appeal to be dismissed.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittiog at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the Lord
Wel Justice WILDE and a Common Jury.)

LF.ADER AND OTHERS v. STRANGE.
The further hearing of this case, which was part
heard yesterday, was resumed this morning. It will be
remembered that is an action for the alleged infringe-
ment of the plaintiffs' copyright in a song, called " My
boyhood's level a part of the opera of Leoline.
Mr. East John tilestropp, a composer of music, on
the part of the defendant, proved that he had com-
posed the plaintiffs' and the defendant's songs, " My
boyhood's love," and, in his opinion, there was
not sufficient difference in the arrangement to
give the plaintiffs' song originality. The plaintiffs'
symphony imitates the Hamburgh edition
in four bars ;
the same notes are used, only they are diff rently set
out in the bars. The variations are slight. I find no
new invention or idea in either the plaintiffs' symphony
or melody. There is a grace note in the plaintiffs' com-
position which is not in the original, but that is such a
variation as a musician might introduce voluntarily, as
he passed on. I am afraid there are a great many
" heck" musicians—(Laughter)—and a hack musician
might write such an accompaniment as the plaintiffs', and
he would probably do it for a guinea.
Cross-examined by Sergeant CHA.NNELL—The copy
of which I have been speaking gives the French score
and the German words. There are not as many as sixty
improvements on the French edition by the plaintiffs. I
think both the English editions are inferior to the
French copy; but I think the plaintiffs' is the better of
the two, because it is more like the original.
By the JeDGE—Some parts of the bass are more
simple in the plaintiffs' copy, as compared with the
original.
Sir Henry Bishop called and examined by Mr.
Sergeant BYLES —I am the professor of music at Ox-
ford. I have compared the plaintiffs' edition of the
song with the original. I find that the melody is the
"QM The arrangement of the symphony and accom.
panitnent somewhat vary. At the commencement
of the plaintiffs' symphony there are two bars which
are not in the original copy ; but in the original
those two bars are not to be found in the melody.
They are the same bars both in the . original and
the plaintiffs' copy, but the position is varied.
The symphony is taken from the original, and the
accompaniment throughout is founded upon it.
I cannot say there is any invention in either the
symphony or the accomp Iniment ; what has been done
bas been merely to simplify. There is a similarity
between the plaintiffs' and the defendant's copies; anti
it is not impossible that the same ideas and the same
mode of arrangement might net have occurred to two
different individuals, seeking to
inadopt a common origi-
nal. The only improvement the plaintiff,' copy is
the transposilien of the key into D natural. Any
copyist could do that ;it is done by rule. There is no
merit in the plaintiffs' melody to tempt an imitation.
In the plaintiffs' melody I find no harmonies which are
not in the original. Ido not find any violin passage
omitted as is alleged by the plaintiffs; that passage has
been simplified in the plaintiffs copy, but the notes are
precisely the same.
Cross-examined by Sergeant CHINNELL—The de-
fendant's is as like the plaintiffs' as the plaintiffs' is like
the original. Certainly the defendant's and the plain-
tiffs' copies are very similar. Supposing I had not seen
the foreign editions, I should say the plaintiffs' and the
defendant's are very much alike in all essential parti-
culars. I have adapted a few foreign operas for English
performance. I have made what alterations I thought
were necessary on those occasions.
Mr. John F. Burroughs—l am a musical composer of
between 30 and 40 years standing. I have heard Sir
Henry Bishop's examination and cross-examination, and
I agree with it in general.
Mr. Robert Macpherson—ls a professor of music.
Agrees in the evidence given by Sir H. Bishop. is not
a native of this country, but a Scotehman.—(Laughter.)
Not the less informed for that.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL—You are too far north for
me.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Strange, son of the defendant, proved that his
father
had no interest in the copyright of the Musical
Bouquet, of which the alleged piracy is a portion.
He did not print or cause it to be printed, though his
name appeared upon the title-page. His father had only
the usual commission on the number of copies he sold.
He had not received a greater profit from the sale of the
Neve
song in question than 3s.
new his father to in-
terfere at all in the Publication of the " Musical
Bouquet."
Cross-examined—His father had sold the Musical Bou
quet from its first publication. Receivedtne copies he
sold from Mr. Sheard, the proprietorild
of
aeadihr.oirtkted that
This was the defendant's case, a
Mr. Sergeant ('HANNELL replied. II:h
the plaintiffs' publication was not an original
had been token, in all essential particularswotrrkom,
execution
butthe
foreign edition; and all the merit claimed by the plaintiffs
was that they bad taken a song, most ciifficu of
as it stood in the foreign opera, and o simplified
it that it could be performed in privr to do.
mestic circles to their great delight ; and this
they had done at a great expense, which accounted for the
difference of price bet,veen the plaintiffs'
the p
ifis'andd defendant's
s
editions, the latter having merely o,
version, with slight variati ens, without being at any, or
comparatively small cost.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case to the
Jury. He would ask them first of all whether the plaintiffs'