The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-07 00:00:00

UNIVERSAL EMIGRATION and
COLONIZATION COMPANY.
8, St. Martin's-place, Trafalgar-square.
London, July 30, 1851.
Another VESSEL will be DISPATCHED early in September next,
for this Company's Settlement of KENT, on the Brazos, Texas.
By order of the Board,
W. ST. CL AIR TROTTER, Sec.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 6.

Their Lordships sat in appeals at 01le o'clock. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cran-
worth, and Earl Fortescuc.

BRIGHT V. HUTTON.
HUTTON V. BRIGHT.

These were two cross appeals from a judgment of
Lord Cranworth's. The bill was filed originally by Mr.
Hutton, the official manager appointed under the Joint-
stock Companies Winding-up Act to wind up the affairs
of the Direct Birmingham, Oxford, Reading, and Brigh-
ton Railway Company. It appeard that on the 25th
September, 1845, the prospectus of this company was
first issued, containing among the names of the pro-
visional committee the name of Mr. Bright, and on the
14th of October Mr. Bright also became an allottee, by
accepting an allotment of 100 shares, on which he paid
2624 10s. as a deposit. On the 21st only 67,630 shares
out of the 80,000 of which the company was to consist,
had been applied for, and no Act of Parliament was
ever applied for, and the undertaking was afterwards
wholly abandoned. On the 21st December an order was
made by the late Vice-Chancellor of England to dissolve
and wind up the affairs of the company; and Master
Brougham, who was charged with that winding up, on
the 3rd of July made an order for a call of 104 per
share for the expenses incurred, upon each of the con-
tributories, among whom Mr. Bright was to bear a
rateable proportion of the expenses incurred from the
14th of October, the day on which he became an allottee,
up to the period when the company was dissolved. Lord
Cranworth, on a motion before the Court, confirmed the
said order,and against this decision both parties appealed,
Mr. Bright contending that no expenses whatever could
he recovered from him, and the official manager seeking
to fix Mr. Bright with a rateable proportion of the ex-
penses of the company from the time of its first forma-

Lon down to its abandonment.
Mr. C. P. Cooper an* I, Morris appeared for the
appalls:it, Mr. Bright, and ~ r. 13ethell and Mr. Rox-
burgh for the official manager.

At the conclusion of the arguments,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that undoubtedly this
was an important case, as it affected the rights and lia-
bilities of very large numbers of persons; but when he
consented to have it argued here this day he had not
properly reflected on the circumstance that the circuits
would deprive the House of the benefit of having the
assistance of the judges. However, the argument had
taken place, and his Noble and Learned Friend Lord
Cranworth and himself would give their fullest attention
to it. If they could make up their minds upon it before
Friday, the parties should have notice, and judgment
should then be delivered. At present he could only
move to adjourn the further consideration of the case.
Adjourned accordingly.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Aug. 6.
(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
BOOSEY V. JAMES.—" LA SONNANBITLA."—COPYRIGHT.

Mr. CAMPBELL, with whom was Mr. J. Raymond,
moved for an injunction, restraining the defendant, Mr.
W. M. James (of Paternoster-row, and of Argyle-street,
and the proprietor of the Pianista, or Italian Opera and
Promenade Concert Magazine, of pianoforte and vocal
music), his workmen, servants, and agents, from print-
ing, publishing, selling, or disposing of, or causing or
procuring to he printed, published, sold, or disposed of,
any copy or copies of the ten principal airs from the
opera called La Sonnambula, composed by Bellini, or
any of them, or any part or parts thereof, in infringe-
ment of the plaintiff's copyright in the said airs, during
his term, or until further order. The plaintiff alleged
that he became proprietor of the musical copyright in
the airs in question in June, 1831. The airs in
question were:—" Tutto c gioja tutto e festa," cave-
tins; " Come per me Sereno," recitative o
cavatina; 3d, " Prendi l'anel t'io done," scena e
duetto; 4th, "Vi raviso e lueghi," cavatina; sth,
" A fosco cielo a notte;" 6th, " Son Geloso del Zefiro
errante," duetto; 7th, " Oh come lieto e it popolo;" Bth,
" Tutto e sciolto oh die funesto;" scena end aria, 9th,
" Ah non credos ;" and 10th, " Ah, non giunge uman
pensiero ;" that these airs had been registered at Sta-
tioners' Hall at the same time, and that they were then
for the first time published in England, or (as the plain-
tiff believed) elsewhere. That, in 1844, he received
notice of the infringement of his copyright by a music-
seller in Holborn; that the action " Boosey v. Purday,"
was subsequently tried and argued, and judgment was
pronounced in the plaintiff's favour in all the issuos ex-
cept the second and third, which related to the property
in the copyright and its continuance; that subsequently,
the plaintiff's copyright in several of the airs was in-
fringed by other parties, against whom he had been
successful at law; that the defendant denied the plain-
tiff's title to the copyright of a work composed by a
foreigner residing abroad.
His Hosioun observed that the subject of foreign
copyrights was one on which the Courts had not been
very harmonious.
Mr. C. HALL, for the defendant, submitted that the
plaintiff's title was a serious question, which ought first
to he tried at law. He was instructed that the airs had
been publicly exposed for sale in the shops at Milan, and
had been in common use at private houses. To grant
an injunction would do much more injury to the defen-
dant than to the plaintiff, should it ultimately appear
that the latter had no legal title to the copyright.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, without calling on Mr.
Campbell for a reply, and having been referred to " Cox
v. Strange," and " Boosey v. Davidson," said all honour
and morality are on the side of the plaintiff here. The
question is one of strict law. That is the point I have
to decide. Into neither of the other considerations do I
enter. In my opinion, there is so strong a probability,
in point of fact, and of strict law, to say the least, in the
plaintiff's favour, that on his giving the usual undertaking
as to damages, I think he is entitled to the injunction. I
am surprised that any man should be found willing to
take a point such as this to enable him to invade the
property of others. The plaintiff undertaking to abide
by any order which the Court might make respecting
damages, and bringing the action within three weeks,
let the injunction go. Mr. Hall, you require him to
bring the action? Mr. ITALL—Yes, sir.
His HONOUR—Let the declaration be delivered within
three weeks--you consent to accept it within that time.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, August 5.
CROWN SlDE.—(B&ore Lord Chief Justice JERVIS.)
John Payne, 11, a lad of inoffensive appearance, was
indicted for the wilful murder of William Gibson, by
stabbing him with a knife.
Mr. Johnson prosecuted; Mr. Clarkson was for the
defence.
The Learned COUNSEL, on opening the case for the
prosecution, said it was a very painful position for him
to appear as prosecutor of a lad of the tender age of the
prisoner, and especially when the charge against him
was of such et very serious and dreadful character. He
was fearful, however, that the evidence ho should lay
before them would leave no doubt that the unfortunate
boy who was stated in the indictment to have been killed
did in point cf fact meet with his death from the act of
the prisoner, and the only question for the consideration
of the jury 'would be whether that act amounted to the
crime of wilful murder, or whether it could be construed
as one amounting only to manslaughter. He then pro-
ceeded to ste.te the facts of the case, and it appeared that
on the evening of the 14th of June the deceased, who
was a lad about 13 years old, had been sent by his
mother on an errand into the town of Hor-
sham, and as he was going over the cause-
way near thu church, saw the prisoner sitting upon
the ground with one of his boots off, and in the
act of sharpening a penknife upon the stones. What
actually occurred prior to any assault having been
committed did not very clearly appear, but almost im-
mediately the deseased exclaimed to the prisoner,
" You have done it now—you have stabbed me," and
began to cry. The prisoner upon this said, "I have
not hurt you, have I ?—don't cry." Some persons then
came up, and on the deceased again saying that the pri-
soner had stabbed him, the latter said that the deceased
boy had struck him in the face first, before he touched
him. The v,nfortunate deceased was taken home, and it
was discovered that he had been stabbed in the cheat,
but the wound began to heal, and at first it was thought
that nothing; serious would result from it. It turned
out, however, that the liver had been injured, and an
abscess subsequently formed in that organ, and the de-
ceased died on the 25th of Juno from the injury he had
received. _ _

----
These facts were shortly proved in evidence, and in
addition a statement made by the deceased boy a
couple of days before his death was put in, in which
he stated positively that he gave no provocation, but
said that after he bad passed the prisoner, while he
was sitting in the position described, he got up and
followed hitt'', and that on his coming up to him he deli-
berately stabbed him with the penknife that he had been
sharpening.
Mr. CEANKSON made a most feeling appeal to the jury
on behalf of the prisoner, observing that he felt it would
be idle to endeavour to save him from a conviction for
the crime o f manslaughter, and the only struggle he
should maks would be to endeavour to induce them to
Come to the charitable conclusion that there had been
some struge;le or scuffle between the prisoner and the un-
fortunate lad who had lost his life, during which the
fatal injury had been inflicted. The illegal act of using
a deadly nil itrurnent under such circumstances would in
law undoubtedly amount to the crime of manslaughter,
confidence
and of that offence ho submitted that the prisoner must,
at ll vent t
i,
hat, b el convicted;ooking
a t
the but t e
tender r age
e did hoofp
the
ew ith
prisoner,
and considisring the dreadful consequences that might
follow upon his conviction of the crime of murder, they
would feel that they were justified in saying that the act
of the prisoner amounted only to manslaughter.
The Learned JUDGE, in summing up, said that the
Present cas s was, undoubtedly, one of a most painful
character to all parties, but at the same time they must
take care that the law was carried out with integrity,
and that a • gerdiet in no case should be returned except
in accordtrace with the sworn testimony in the case. It
was his duty to tell. them that by the law of England
every act of homicide was looked upon in the light of
murder unless the circumstances connected with it were
such as to reduce the crime to one of lower magnitude,
and the question for them to consider was whether
there were any such circumstances in the present case.
There certainly was no evidence to show
in what manner
g the transaction first commenced, and if the jury ghoul,'