The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-30 00:00:00

BARNETT V. GLOSSOP.

This was an action brought by a gentleman well known
to the literary world against the manager and proprietor of
the Victoria Theatre, to recover the sum of 151. for the
copyright of a dramatic piece entitled Victorine, or TII
Sleep on it, bargained and sold to the defendant.
Mr. DOWLING was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr.
THOMAS appeared on behalf of the defendant.
James Phillips, a glass-manufacturer, of No. 190, Regent-
street, stated that he was acquainted with the plaintiff, who
was a dramatic author of great celebrity. The defendant
was the manager and proprietor of the Victoria Theatre.
On Monday, the 20th of October, he took a dramatic
piece in manuscript, entitled Victorine, or I'll Sleep on it,
at the request of the plaintiff, to the defendant's resi-
dence, and left it there. The dramatic piece he referred to
was the sequel to Victorine, or I'll Sleep on it, by Buckstone,
which was originally performed at the Adelphi Theatre, and
afterwards at the Victoria, where it had a very successful run
of 100 nights. On the following Friday he saw the defend-
ant on the stage of his theatre, who was very much pleased
at having the pioce and asked him what sum he thought the
plaintiff would be entitled to for it. Witness said he thought
201. would be a very fair remuneration. The defendant re-
plied, " Well, I saw young Barnett last night, and agreed
to give him 151. for the piece." Witness remarked to him
it was, in his opinion, rather too small. The defendant
then made answer, that this would be an opening to the
plaintiff to get pieces at his theatre, and thereby enable him
to be properly remunerated for this and others. The de-
fendant then went into the manager's room and cast the
characters for the piece, having previously stated that it
should be put into immediate rehearsal, and be ready for
performance in the course of three weeks. 'Witness knew
not whether it was or was not rehearsed. Witness was
told by the defendant he should be glad to see him present
at the rehearsal. It was advertised during a fortnight in
the play-bills being under rehearsal, and would shortly be
produced at the Victoria Theatre.
Cross-examined—The first time he went to the defend-
ant's residence was on the 20th of October. The piece
was in manuscript. Witness read the piece. The de-
fendant informed him the next time that the. manuscript

.9,bleen re a d\z‘a
Ask it. ssu tha deco .
performance about a fortnight. Was partied
quainted with theatricals, but could not state whether it
was the practice to publicly announce in the playbills pf
theatres the intended performance of new pieces when the
pieces were not afterwards performed. Was positive the cha-
racters for the piece were cast. Was not aware whether the
various portions of the piece were distributed among the ac-
tors to study. Could not tell whether the piece was an original
production or a translation. Had never st-sen a French ori-
ginal of it. It was in three acts. Thoug;:t it was fit for
representation without curteilment. He considered the
piece a very good one. It was sent back by the defendant
to make alterations. Witness could not tell whether it 3vas
returned to the defendant. The bills of the theatre were
printed weekly, unless alterations took place in the perform-
ances. Was not aware whether there were any alterations in
the pieces during the fortnight the second part of Victorine
was announced in the playbills for speedy performance.
The 17th of November the announcement of the intended.
production of the piece was withdrawn from the playbills.
Witness went to the defendant and asked him the reason
he had withdrawn the announced piece from the playbills,
when the defendant stated the piece was rubbish, and he
would have nothing to do with it ; that was the reason he
had withdrawn its announcement from the playbills.
Witness told the plaintiff what the defendant had said
respecting the piece. It was in the defendant's posses-
sion about three weeks. The plaintiff had written many
dramatic pieces. Witness considered that the public an-
nouncement of the intended performance of the second part
of Victorine had done the plaintiff injury. Did not know
whether the plaintiff had offered the piece to any other
manager, but believed that he was at one time going to
Mr. Davidge, of the Surrey Theatre, to offer him the piece.
Witness was not present when the plaintiff went to the
Surrey Theatre. Did not know that the plaintiff applied
to the defendant for a sum of money on account, but had
been told by the plaintiff that be had done so, in conse-
quence of the announcement of the piece for production,
and his belief that the defendant woeld advance him the
money. He thought '2O/. was the value of the piece, and
had been informed by the plaintiff, that the defendant had
bargained for the piece upon those terms, upon condition
that the defendant did what he thought proper with the
manuscript.. Knew Colley and Mitchell ; they were mem-
bers of the Victoria company. Was at the plaintiff's house
about a fortnight ago. Diet not see tne manuscript at the
plaintiff's. The plaintiff acquainted him that he had the
piece back from the defendant for alteration. The last
time he saw the piece in the plaintiff's possession, was
during the period it was under advertisement. He saw the
piece on the defendant's table on the 21st of November.
Did not know that the manuscript was now in the plain-
tiff's possession.

Richard John Raymond, the author of the play of the
Irish Gentleman, stated that he had the misfortune to be
an author, for he found it very difficult to exist by means
of his productions. Had hoard read the second part of
Victorine ; it was an original production, able and meri-
torious. It was an original piece from the beginning to end.
It was fully worth 301. Was sure that sum was not too
much for an author to exist, and not live, by his talents.
He meant by existence having bread and cheese--and by
living, port wine and other luxuries. Managers might
make fortunes in these times, if they were prudent, and
acted upon the principle of live and let live. The reading
of Victorine took an hour and three quarters. Thought
the piece was not too long. It was read to him by the
plaintiff about three months ago, before it was sent to the
defendant. Made several suggestions to the plaintiff by
way of amending the piece, but knew not whether he
adopted them. The plaintiff informed him that he had
availed himself of his suggestions. Those suggestions
tended to condense the piece. Had had a piece of his
own performed since Mr. Bultver's Act for the protection
of authors passed. Had been informed by the plaintiff
that he had applied to the defendant for some money on
account, but forgot whether he mentioned the amount.
Understood from the plaintiff that he requested an advance
of money from the defendant on account of 15/., which had
been agreed upon by the defendant for the copyright.
This being the whole of the evidence on the part of the
plaintiff, Mr. THOMAS, the defendant's counsel, submitted
that there was no case to go the Jury, the 54th George 111.,
cap. 15G, Bth of Anne, cap. 19, and Mr. Bulwer's Copy-
right Protection Act, insisting that every agreement for a
copyright shall be in writing.
Mr. DOWLING urged, that to render such defence avail-
able, the defendant ought to have pleaded specially, in ac-
cordance with the new rules.

The UNDER SHERIFF, after some consideration, decided
upon referring the counsel for the defendant to the Court.
of King's Bench, inasmuch as the question was one of too
much importance for him to nonsuit the plaintiff.
Mr. THOMAS having addressed the jury in a speech of
considerable length and ability, called witnesses, who swore
that the plaintiff bad admitted that he took the piece to the
theatre, and gave it to the messenger, named Bennett, who
was examined, and deposed that be never received it.
The UNDER SHERIFF having summed up the evidence
with great perspicuity and minuteness, the Jury retired to
consider of their verdict, and having been locked up about
three-quarters of an hour, they returned into court, and found
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 151.