The Sun.
London, England, 1812-11-21 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NO; 20.

MARTIN AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF ---, A BANK-

RCPT, V. RODGERS.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved for an injunction
to present the defendant from prOsecuting a suit
in a Court of Common Law, against the plain-
tiff's.: They, as assignees of the bankrupt, sold an
estate to the defendants for. 50001. and . received
1,0001. as a deposit. There being some difficulty
in making out. the title, the defendant brought his
action to recover the deposit, although he knew the
plaintiffs had paid it away amongst the creditors
of the bankrupt ; they were- willing to go before
the Master to prove the title.
Mr.'HART, Counsel for the defendant, said; his
client was willing to refer all the matters in dispute
to the Master, on condition that the deposit was
paid into Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, he had riot
a doubt but an auctioneer was liable to be called
on to pay into Court the deposit, for he could
be only considered as a stake-holder, under which
consideration he would not grant an injunction,
as it related to Martin, in • his capacity of auc-
tioneer ; but i❑ the cause against the assignees,
they might take it without paying the money into
Court.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Nov. 20,

THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE V. BUYER.

This was an action brought by the University
of Cambridge against the defendant, who is a
bookseller, to receive penalties under the Sth, of
Anne; in consequence of his having neglected to
deliver to the warehouse-keeper of the Stationers'
Company, copies of a certain publication (Fox's
History), for the use of the said University. The
action was originally tried before LordEllenbo-
rough", and a verdict was obtained for the plain-
tiff, subject to a future argument.
Mr. LITTLEDALE this day persisted in the argu-
ments which he had adduced upon the trial. 'He
stated, that by certain statutes passed in the reign
mf Charles the Second, it' was enacted, for the
encouragement of literatury, that a certain num-
ber of copies of all bOoks which might be pub-
lished, should be sent free of expence to the
Universities of England. By a subsequent Sta-
tute of the Bth Anne, these Statutes were con-;
firmed, and after vesting
,in the' author,'
,pub-
lisher, or purchaser; the privilege of reserving
to himself the sole advaritaes to be derived
from his copy-right for 14 years, as a return for
that protection, it enacted that nine copies of
all books so published should be entered in Sta •
tioners' Hall, for the 'purposes afOresaid ; the
Colleges of Scotland, as well as the English Col-
leges, having the right to copies of such works.
By the Statutes of the 'lsth and 41st Geo. 111.
further provisions were made for the name par-,
pose, and particularly the last enacted, that the
Universities of Great Britain, including those of
Dublin and'S'cotland, sbonld be e,ltitled to copies
of all works " entered at Stationers' Hall.!' The
ground o' resistance to the action pn the part of
the defendant was, that the work upon which
penalties were sought, to be recovered, had not
been entered at Stationers' Hall, and f,e-proprie-
tors not having derived any advantage -from the
protection of their privilege under the statute of
Anne, but contenting theinselves with their re-
medy at Common Law; did not think they
were bound to make The voluntary contribu-
tions 'to the Universities, which had been con-
tended for.
In answer to' this. Mr. LI;TTLEDALE argued,

that the clear and manifest meaning of the Act of
Anne, was to secure to the Universities, for the.'
encouragement, of literature, free -.of expellee,
copies of all works which should be published,
taking for granted that 'the proprietors, for their
own sake, would make those entries in Stationers'
Hall, which were to convey to the Colleges the
advantages intended. That the Acts of the. 15th
of Geo. HI. had only stipulated that these advan-
tages were to be derived from. such works as were
entered at Stationers' Hall, he was fully aware,
yet from the clear and indisputable intent of the
former Act, he, was satisfied that the-Legislature,
in framing the- latter Acts, .had laboured under a
misconception. In this opinion, be trusted the
Court would coincide, and see therjustiee of con-
firming the Verdict in favour of the
Mr. BROUGHAM generally contended, that • the
Statutes of the 15th and 41st ot. Geo,Jll. were
not liable to the same interpretation as those of
Charles 11. and the Bth of Anne. This, he said,
was evident from the wording of that of.the 41st
of the King—..which expressly stipulated, that the
Universities were intitled only to copies of works,
the titles of which had been reßistered in Sta-
tioners' Hall. This registry had never been made
of the book in..question; by hiS client—and as he
had never attempted to avail himself of the privi-
leges which the Bth of Anne had protected, bitt
contented himself with the remedy, in ease of an -
infringement on,his,copy-right,- which the Com-
mon • Law, as already admitted,' afforded. He,
Mr. Brougham, linnibly submitted, that. he was
not bound tO fUrnish to the public libraries, the'
copies contended for.
• Mr. LITTLEDAISE having replied,'
Lord Et.LENSoRouGH, in giving judgment, ob-
served, that the sound ride of construing any
statute was to look to the body of the thing to be
construed, to collect..the • meaning and intention
of the thing so to be, construed, and, if clear and
intelligible ,to decide accordingly. He admitted
that tbe\Statutes of Geo. 111. might be subject to
a different interpretion to those of Anne and
Charlefi, but still this interpretation might beinade
without violating the original text. Some ditli-
' culty. certainly did arise upon due consideration
of all the Acts, yet as the clear meaning of that of
Anne was to prevent any elision of the'Statutes
of. Charles,' and to secure to the Universitiee, the
advantages of obtaining copies of all works tree
of expense, he apprehended, in framing of the
Act of the 41st of the King, a misconception of
the former Acts must have taken place—,-and con-
struing the Statute of Anne in its plain and intelli-
gible sense, he certainly thought the verdict in
favour of plaintiff' ought to be confirmed.