The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-07 00:00:00

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 6.
(Sittings in Banco.)
SIMS AND ANOTTIEII L. MARRYAT.
This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant for a loss incurred by the plaintiff's in preparing
to publish the late Captain Marryat's tale of the "Adven-
tures of Monsieur Violet." The defendant, who was
his son, had sold the copyright to the plaintiffs, when,
just as they were about to:publish it in the " Parlour
Library," they received an intimation from Mr. Bentley
that it was his property, by sale from Captain Marryat.
They did not accuse the defendant of having made the
sale except in entire ignorance of what his father had
done, but they insisted that beyond the return of the
purchase-money, which he was willing to give back,
they were entitled to damages for the expenses they had
incurred in preparing for the publication. The defen-
dant had put on the record pleas which raised the ques-
tions whether the contract between himself and the
plaintiff amounted to a warranty that the copyright was
in him, and whether Mr. Bentley possessed such an
equitable right to the work as justified the plaintiffs in
desisting, upon his notice, from publishing it.
Mr. liugh Hill was heard for the plaintiffs; and Mr.
Sergeant Channel' for the defendant.
Lord CAMPBELL-I think that the plaintiffs are enti-
tled to our judgment. We are not called on to inquire
what might be the rights of the plaintiffs in the absence
of an express warranty; on that point the law is perhaps
in ❑n unsatisfactory state. According to the decision of
the Court of Exchequer in the case of " Morley v. At-
tenborough," with the doctrine of which I entirely
agree, if a pawnbroker sells au article pledged with him
he does not enter into a warranty of title. He under-
takes only that he has a right at that time to sell the
property, the time of pledging having expired; and he
sells such right as the def.iut of the pawner has vested
in him. But, from the able view of the law taken by the
Learned Judge who delivered the judgment of the Court
in that case, many questions appear to remain open; for
though the general doctrine of caveat enaptor applies to
the purchasers of personal property, still there are many
exceptions to its application. All goods sold in a shop,
and under executory contracts, are stated to be excep-
tions to the rule. Here we have no necessity to dis-
cuss these questions, for in this case there is an ex-
press contract between the parties. The language .of
the letters leaves no doubt whatever that there was an
express positive warranty of title in this case. That
is found both in the correspondence and the receipt. If,
after these letters, there had been a formal agreement,
we must have looked to that alone; but there was none,
and tee letters themselves constitute the contract be-
tween the parties. Taking the correspondence and the
receipt, les cannot doubt that the defendant, in ignorance
of what his father had done, and without the smallest
moral impropriety, but believing that the copyright was
in him, did warrant that it was so, and warranted to
the purchaser the title .o that copyright. What was
this correspondence? The defendant, in answer to a
letter received from the plaintiffs, says:—" I shall be
happy to agree with you respecting the copyright of
the • Adventures of Monsieur Violet."' What is copy-
right? It is the exclusive right to multiply the copies
of the work; and that was what his letter says he was
willing to sell. Then comes another letter, in which the
defendant says, " You formerly made me an offer of 50
guineas for the exclusive right of publishing in your
' Parlour Library,' for ten years,,Captain Marryat's work
of ' The Adventures of Monsieur Violet,' which offer
I accept." Here is an acknowledgment of a contract
by which the defendant sells to the plaintiffs
the exclusive right of publishing a work of
his father's in a particular form. How could
he do that unless he had the whole copyright in him-
self? If he had already sold part of the copyright he
could nut have sold the " execlusive right of publishing"
in this manner, so that this was equivalent to affirming
that he had not sold any part of the right, but had the
whole of it in himself. He also says, " I possess but
few of the copyrights of Captain Marryal's works, many
of them having already been published in a cheap form.
I will let you know in a few days those that belong to
me." What is this but stating that what he did sell did
belong to him? The offer was an offer for the exclusive
right of publishing for ten years, and that offer he ex-
pressly accepted. We find the same thing if we pass from
the letters to the receipt. What are the words of that
document? " Received from Messrs. Sims the sum of 50/.
sterling., for permission to publish Captain Marryat's
work, • Tho Travels of Monsieur Violet,' so long as the
copyright in that work exists, that right to be exclusively
their own for ten years from this date." Is not the con-
tract there described broken by the plaintiffs not having
the exclusive right? Here is a positive, direct, and express
warranty, and we are therefore relieved from any con-
sideration of what may or may not be implied, and on
the first issuethe judgment must be for the plaintiffs.
Then, are the plaintiffs entitled to the verdict on the
second and third issues? I think they are, for it is
clear that Mr. Bentley had an equitable interest in the
copyright of this work. The question has been mooted,
whether we can take notice of the doctrines of equity
when they come incidentally before us. No doubt we
can. With respect to the ecclesiastical law, the old prac-
tice was to move for leave for the Court to be addressed
by a pair of doctors, but when they were heard they
came, not as witnesses to speak to the ecclesiastical law
as a fact, but as counsel to assist the judges with their
arguments. It has been said that we know nothing of
Parliamentary law and the law of privilege; but we
must instruct ourselves upon it in the best way we can,
by looking into " Hatsell" and other Parliamentary
honks, to qualify us for deciding upon it. So with re-
gard to equity, we are suppose() to be acquainted with
it, or to hove the means of waking ourselves acquainted
with it. Now Ido not doult that in this cue the agree-
ment between Mr. Bentley and Captain Marryat could
have been enforced in equity, and I are therefore of

opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to our judgment
on all the issues.

The other Judges concurred.

Judgment tor the plaintifF3.

BAIL COURT, June 6.

:sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice WIGHTDILN
and a Common Jury.)
CELL V. FOWLER.

This was an action brought by an attorney to recover
the sum of 341. is. 61, being the amount of his bill of
costs against the defendant, who was a gentleman that
supplied casual information to some of the London news.
papers.

It appeared that the plaintiff had acted as attorney to
the defendant, and had commenced an action at his in-
stance against the publisher of the Daily News, for an
alleged libel that bad arisen out of a disagreement
which the defendant had had with some of the morning
❑ewspapers in reference to a written charge obtained by
him from the Bishop of London. The plaintiff refused
to proceed with the action of libel unless the defendant
paid him the costs out of his pocket, which he failed to
do. The defendant, who appeared in person, stated that
the plaintiff had undertaken to go on with the action
against the Daily News for the sum of 71. Of the whole
earn claimed by the plaintiff, 271. was for the costs incur-
red in the action referred to.

The jury found a verdict for the whole amount claimed
by the plaintiff, sohjpet to the taxation of the Master.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
CLEItKEIV WELL.
Madame Leonara V iolante Valladier, surrendered to
her bail, charged by M. Frarc is Caesar Valladier, of
No. 12, Northumberland-street, Strand, upon a charge'
of bigamy.
Mr. Lewis attended for the prosecution, and a Mr.
Fisher for the defence.
Mrs. Mary France; Bobbit, No. 1, Bryan street, Cale-
donian-road. Islington, sworn, proved that she saw Mr.
Frederick Weymouth that day in the neighbourhood
alive and well.
Mr. Fisher—Pray, what are you? Mrs. Bobbit—l
am a lady.
Aro you married?—l am.
Do you know the nature of an oath?—l do.
Do you know that you are liable to be indicted for
false swearing if you don't speak the truth ?—I do.
He put other questions which were quite irrelevant,
when he was stopped by Mr. CONDE, who told him that
he would not suffer the time of the Court to be wasted.
Mr. Fisher—Pray have you not been on terms of in-
timacy with M. Valladier? Mrs. Bobbit (indignantly)
—Never, I have seen the prisoner with M. Valladier.
They lodged in my house, and she promised to pay me,
which she has not done.
Mr. Fisher—Pray how long have you been acquainted
with Mr. Weymouth? Mrs. Bobbit—Five years.
Frangais Comer Valladier deposed that be married the
prisoner in the month of November, 1848.
Mr. Fisher—Pray how long did you know her before
your marriage with her?
Mr. COMBE (to the witness)—You need net answer
that question.
Mr. Fisher—Pray how long did you live with her be-
fore you married with her?
Mr. CONBE—You need not answer that question.
Mr. Fisher—Did you live with her at all?
Mr. COMBE—You need not answer that question.
Mr. Fisher—Did you ever open any boxes of her's?
Mr. COMBE—You need not answer that question?
Mr. Fisher—Oh, then it is no good putting any more
questions here, we had better let the matter drop alto-
gether.—(A laugh.)
Mrs. Charlotte Billington, of No. 2, Fair-street, Horse-
lydown, was present at the marriagejaMarch, betweenah the prisoner
and Mr. Frederick Weymouth,
, 1845.
Mr. Fisher was about to question this witness, when
Madame Valladier rose, and addressing Mr. Combe,
said—Sare, me don't wish that gentleman to say any
more for me. Me mush radatre say for myself.
Mr. COMBS—Very well, h
self? Madame Valladier— yeesh you will defend your-
Mr. Fisher (hesitatingly) , after that, your
Worship, I suppose I need not stay here any longer.
Mr. ColtnE (smiling) —You know best about that.
He then walked off,
without his fee. as the reporter was informed,
M. Valladier was re-examined—On making his ap-
pearance in the witnesi-box the prisoner, with consider-
able emotion, pointed at him and said: "De was the
friend of nay first husband; he took me from my first
husband (pointing to Mr. Weymouth, who was standing
near the dock) (she here burst into tears and fell upon
the seat). That man (looking at the prosecutor) dined
at our table and he took me away."
The prosecutor said she always represented herself to
him as a single woman.
She was fully committed to Newgate for trial.
Mr. Weymouth here addressed the bench, and said be
had a certificate in bis possession of a marriage which
took place between the prisoner and a gentleman prior
to her marriage with him (Mr. Weymouth), and she
was no more his wife than M. Valladier's.
Mr. Comßs said he could attend to nothing tut
evidence.

We exceedingly regret to state that Major-
General Macdonald, C. 13., of the Royal Artillery, brother of
the late lamented Adjutant.. General, is alarmingly ill at his
roliaulice i Lozulpar—Brih§la Army ,Despatch.