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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat again to-day in the Old Hail,
Lincoln's Inn, to hE-sr appeals.

CHAMBERS V. BIGGERS—JUDGMENT.
The Loan CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, the arguments on which were concluded yes-
terday. The case came before the Court upon appeal
from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England,
directing the trial of an issue. The plaintiff, Captain
Alan Chambre, of Burnley, in Llncashire, applied, in
the end of 1846, to Mr. Paynter, then a solicitor, living
in James-street, Bedford-row, for a loan of money on
his acceptance. Mr. Paynter said he had a friend who
could accommodate him, and Chambre then accepted a
bill for 2001. in favour of Paynter. No money was forth-
coining, and Paynter left London in a state of insolvency,
after repeatedly promising to return the bill ; and in
about a mouth Chambre received no:ice from Siggers
that be 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 Vico Chancellor, on an allegation of
Siggers in his answer, that he had discounted the bill
for Pgea3nter and paid him 80/. in money, and released a
debt for 1101., directed an issue, to ascertain what money
had 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.)
(Sitting at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before the Lord
Chief Justice WILDE and a Common Jury.)
LEADER 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 infrings-
taent of the plaintiff.' copyright in a song, called " My
boyhood's love," a part of the opera of Leoline.
Mr. East John Westropp, a composer of music, on
the part of the defendant, proved that he had cam-
Posed the plaintiffs' and the defendant's songs, " My
boyhood'sbo love," and, in his opinion, there was
sufficient difference in the arrangement to
give the plaintiffs' song originality. The plaintiff.'
sYmphony imitates the Hamburgh edition in four bars ;
the same notes are used, only they are duff rently set
out in the bars. The variations are slight. I find no
orumelody, invention or idea in either the plaintiffs' symphony
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
1.10 passed on. I am afraid there are a great many
hack" musicians—(Laughter)—and a hack musician
might write such an accompaniment as the plaintiffs', and
ac would probably do it for a guinea.
Cross-examined by sergeant CHANNELL—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 JUDGE—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 u f music at Ox-
f`)r,4- I have compared the plaintiffs' edition of the
song with the original. I find that the melody is the
same. The arrangement of the symphony and acc:im•
Paaiinent somewhat vary. At the commencement
of the plaintiffs' symphony there are two ba-s which
are not in the original copy ; but in the original
those two bars are not to be found in the melody.
They ere the same bars both in the original and
the plaintiffs' copy, but the position is varied.
The s 3 mphony 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 accompaniment ; what has been done
has been merely to simplify. There is a similarity
between the plaintiffs' and the defendant's copies; and
it is not impossible that the same ideas and the same
mode of arrangement might net have occurred to two
different individuals, seeking to adopt a COILMOO origi-
nal. The only improvement in the plaintiffs' copy is
the transposition 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 arc
precisely the same.
Cross-examined by Sergeant CHANNELL—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. Supposine. 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 though t
were necessary on those occasions.
Mr. John F. Burrougns—l am a musical composer of
between 30 and 40 years standing. I have heard Sir
Henry
e 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 nc.t
a native of this country, but a Scotchman.—(Laughter.)
Not the less informed for that.—(Rene
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNEL Y ".)
d u g
hter •
rae.—(Laughter.) L— ou are too far north for
Mr. Strange, son of the defendant, proved that his
father had no interest in the
Bouquet, of which the allegeed"bYteiiracy
right of the Musical
He did not print or cause it to yiign
fathertei sd, tah
hopuaogdr though portion.
name appeared upon the title-paps,
the usual commission on the number of copies he sold.
the sale of the
He had not received a greater profit f
song in question than 3s. Never knerw7his father to in.
"otetss...ichan /e
terfere at all in the publication of the
Bouquet."
Cross-examined—His father bad sold the Musical
quet from its first publication. Received tbe
sold from Mr. Sheard, the proprietor of the work.
Thia was the defendant's case, and
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL replied. He admitted that
the plaintiffs' publication was not an original work, but
fhad been token, in all essential particulars, from the
oreign edition; and all the merit claimed by the plaintiffs
as that they had taken a song, most difficult of execution
as it stood in the foreign opera, and so simplified
it that it could be performed in private do-
mestic circles to their great delight ; and this
t,'7 had done at a great expense, which accounted for the
""-o'r, Lc:lt of pries b •xcen the pt ti avy_l to?sio's
kdittr,e, the -
hiltz-f epixt , I. '
version •',1..; • „ without being
s alight variations,
mia_paratively mall cost.
jurlhe LORD Calm. JUSTICE summed up the case to the
Y. Ile Would ikeac them first Qf 411 whether the plointiffei