The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-31 00:00:00

"I have the honour to remain, my dear Mr. O'Connell,
your affectionate, der° and ever faithful servant,
" JOHN CANTWELL.

"John O'Connell, Eq., ALP."

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION.
SERMONS NOT COPYRIGHT.
MACNAUGHTAN V. WILSON.—A case which has ex-
cited considerable interest was decided by the Sheriff-
Substitute, at Paisley, on Saturday last. The cir-
cumstances out of which the case arose, are these:—
The Rev, 'John Macnaughtan, of the Free High
Church, Paisley, lately preached a farewell sermon to
his congregation, prior to his departure for Rosemary-
street Church, Belfast. At the delivery of the
discourse, Mr. William Wilson, editor and pro-
prietor of the Rqfrewshire Advertiser, attended and
took full short hand notes, with the view of publish-
ing the sermon. After Mr. Wilson's intention
became known to Mr. Macnaughtan, the latter
gentleman applied fur an interdict to prevent the
sPpropriation of what the Reverend Gentleman
maintained was copyright. Mr. Wilson held that
sermons were not copyright. The interdict was,
however, granted in the interim ; the case went to trial
m the usual way, and, on Saturday last the Sheriff-
Substitute pronounced the following interlocutor :
Paisley, 27th October, 1849.—The Sheriff-Sub-
stitute, having advised the closed record, recalls the
interdict formerly granted; assoilzies the defender,
reserving as craved in the answers No. 5* of process.
Finds the pursuer liable in expenses, of which, allows
.an account to be given in, and remits the same when
lodged to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report,
• and decerns.
(Signed) R. ROBERTSON GLASGOW.
NOTR.—It is with some hesitation and doubt as to
his view of the law that, in the absence of any autho-
rity directly bearing on the point, the Sheriff-Sub-
stitute has pronounced this decision. The statutes
don't embrace compositions of this nature ; and it is,
therefore, necessap to consider the rights of parties
at common law.- It is said by the pursuer that
a sermon ought to be protected in the same
manner as plays, which, although made public
by performance in a theatre, are still quoad
printing, and independently of statute, held tog
remain the property of the author, and to be still un-
published, so that the author, or those deriving right
through him, shall have the exclusive right of print-
i
fng—that in effect they remain in the position
o a manuscript not yet given to the world.
There is much plausibility in this reasoning.
But there is a difference between the two compo-
sitions, or rather in the mode of the oral publica-
tion which, in the Sheriff Substitute's opinion,
places them in a totally different position, so much so,
as to prevent the arguments applicable to the one,
having any force in regard to the other, and it is
this :—The dramatic author (or the lessee of the
theatre, who must be held to be identified with the
author, as respects the performance, for it is
only through the author that he is entitled to
bring it on the stage) does not give his coro:
Position to the public indiscrimirafely. He
only gives to each person who pays for that privi-
lege the right to hear it. It is a private transac-
tion with each individual who gains admission to the
theatre—a transaction for oneroue causes—a sale to
the hearers. A church, on the contrary, is open to
the public generally. The sermon is given to the
Public for universal edification—it is published to the
World, and what is so published can no longer
be
considered as the private property of the pub-
itsher• This view of the case is strengthened by
inference from the late statute sth and 6th Will.
:V. cap. 65. That Act extended the privilege of
"4)Pyright to lectures by private lecturers, but
tot to those delivered in colleges, &c. Thus proving
the
it was so given in the first case, on account of
"le private sale by the lecturer, to each of those who
jays for the privilege of hearing ; while, in the
fat.ter, the lecture is given to the public, and there-
:,re becomes public property. It is also of import-
i"ce, though not conclusive, that sermons are not
Illueluded in this statute. The Act may he
41..e,13' declaratory of the common law, in
„ -n case oniissien to extend the privelege to any
1' of compositions does not infer the taking away of
it'ic)irri'llon law rights ; but it certainly shows the opi-
-1,4°,11 of the framers of the statute that sermons were
,111, entitled to protection. On these grounds, the
4efeerift-Substitute has formed the opinion, that the
nder
9fer is entitled to publish the sermon, and as he
d his manuscript for revisal by the pursuer, he
11143, obviated any plea on the ground of injury to re-
futation by an imperfect or incorrect report.
(Initialed) IL R. G.
Agent for the Pursuer—Archibald Gardner, Esq.,
et
ea' er, Paisley. Agent for the Defender—David
ll,Eiq., writer, Paisley.—Glasgow Herald.
• , Ia NO. sof process Mr. Wilson craves that his
,p
4% 'I
damages against Mr. Macnaughtan for inter-
"_b.Y laterdict be reserved.