The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-17 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

CROYDON—Auer. 15.
(Before the Chief B iron and a Special Jury.)
BARNETT AND ANOTHER V. REEDE.
The plaintiffs in this action, Messrs. Barnettand
Johnston, are well known, the former as a dramatic
author, and the latter as an actor and dramatic coin- .
poser at the Strand Tlisatre, and the defendant is
also well known as a dramatic author. Toe action
was brought to recover damages from the defendant
for having inserted a notice in the Era nesspaper,
in which he alleged that apiece about to be .pro-
duced at the Strand Theatre was a piratical imita-
tion of a work he had himself written ; and the
plaintiffs represented Vial in consequence of this
notice they were prevented from taking a Ivanfage
of the new Copyright Act, by selling the privilege
of representing their drama to the managers of
country theatres.
Mr. M. 'Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Wordsworth,
Q.C., appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. E. James,
Q. C., Mr. Lush, Q. C., and Mr. Prentice were coun-
sel for the defendant. -
Mr. Chambers, in opening the case to the jury,
described it as one of considerable importance to
dramatic authors, and he then proceeded to state
the circumstances under which the action was
brought. It appeared that in the beginning of the
year a piece called "Les Pauvres de Paris" was
produced in Paris, which excited considerable sen-
sation, and the defendant, who is the, agent for fo-
reign authors, made a translation of this work, arid
registered it, in accordance with the provisions of
the International Copyright Act, as hie property.
'Die plaintiffs subsequently, it appeared, jointly pro.
duced another version of the same piece under the
title of " The-Pride of Poverty, or tae Real Poor of
London," and it was offered to Mr. Payne, the ma.
nager of the Strand Theatre, by whom it was ac-
cepted, and the piece was announced f, •r perform-
ance the first time on Monday, the Pith of Fe-
bruary. The title of the defendant's piece, it ap-
peared, was " Poverty and Pride," and although
it was adtnitt,,d by the plaintiffs that both the
dramas were derived from tne original French piece,
they contended that theirs was totally different
from the defendant's, and that they only took a
general idea of the character of the piece called
"Les Pauvres de Paris," and that theirs was en-
titled to be considered as an original production.
The piece of the plaintiffs having been announced
for performance on the 16th of February, it ap-
peared thst a notice was inserted in the Era news-
piper of the previous week, which was to the effect
that the piece was a piratical imitation of the de-
fendant's work, and cautioning every one concerned
to abstain from representing it under the penalty of
disobeying an injunction from the Court of Chan-
' eery. This notice purported to be signed by Mr.
Anuesley, the attorney for the defendant, but in a
letter that was subsequently written by Mr. Reede
he state 1 that Mr. Anneley did not sign the notice
in question, but that in his hurry he had himself
written his solicitor's name. The learned counsel
said that the piece was played upon the day filed,
but in consequence of all the actors being under the
dread of a visit from the Lord Chancellor's tipstaff
and mace, they did not perform their parts with
the spirit they otherwise would have done, and
this, no doubt, interfered a good deal with the
success of the piece. The plaintiffs were also
unable to avail themselves of the provisions of
the Copyright Ace, under which they were en-
titled to receive a certain amount for every night
that a successful piece was played at a country
theatre . the country managers being of course
afraid to represent the piece in question after the
notice, lest they should bring themselves in con-
tact with the Court 'of Chancery. He then
st tted that the action was brought to recover
damages that had been sustained by the plaintiffs
in the matters above mentioned, and there was
also a count in the declaration charging the de
fendant with slander, 'and he said he should sub-
mit that the notice in question, denying toe right
of tha plaintiffs to the piece thet was to be
produced, amounted
.in law to what was called
a slander of title, fur which the plaintiffs were
also entitled to damages.
The Chief Baton berp observed that t) support
the allegation of a slander of ti le the act must be
done maliciously, and haetould certainly rule that
if the person who gave such a notice as the one
new refer red to' did so' boria file, and wider the be-
lief that the work was a Piratical imi ation of his
own, he would not be ltab!e under the count for
slander of title.
Mr. Chambers said he should contend that the
fact of defendant having placed his attorney's name
to the notice and making a fel-e representation in
reference to the proceedings in Chancery were evi-
dence of malice. •
e Tao Chief B troa ob9erved that it appeared to
him that everything turned upon the fact whether
the plaintiffs' was an original piece, or whether it
was a mere translation ftotn the French.
Mr. James said they had them both in court,
and the defendant's work also, and they could all
be read in French and English. (A laugh.) There
wain only seven acts to the French play. (Reueived
laugh'er.)
The Chief Baron repeated that there could be no
slander of title if a man acted bona fide in the belief
that his property had been pirate). Suppose a per-
son 'had a patent for washing or mangling--
Mr. E. James.e—My lord, your observation ap-
plies is this play exactly. (Laughter.)
The Chief Baron said he was going to sate that
if any one had a patent of this or any other de-
scription he was quite justified in giving notice to
any one who he considered was infringing his rights.
Mr. J. Ir. Johnroue was then called as a wit-
ness. He deposed that he was one of the plaintiffs
in the present action, and by profession an actor
and a dramatic author, and during the last few
years he had written a great many dramatic p-eces.
He heard of the piece being played in Paris called
" Lea Palmas de Paris" at the beginning of the
present year, and he and Mr. Barnett'subsequently
wrote the drama that was played at the Strand
theatre. Thj French work probably was read to
him. The name given to their drama was " The
Pride of Poverty ; or, the Real Poor of London."
(A copy of it was here produced and ideetified by
the witness.) Witness was the author of the drama
now produced conjointly wi h Mr. Barnett. He
had never reed the French originsl and did not un-
derstand French, but Mr. Barnett gave him a
genesil idea of the nature of the French piece. He
was not guided by this entirely, but acted princi
pally from his own original ideas in the part of the
piece that he wrote. When it was finished the
piece was. offered to Mr. Payne, of the Strand
Theatre and he accepted it, and is was advertised
for performance on Monday the 16th of Febtuary.
It was rehearsed previously, and every means were
taken to get the piece up properly. It was per-
formed on the night of the 16th, but there was a
great deal of interruption and the curtain fell five
or six times during the performance. . This arose
from various causes. He could not say whether
Mr. Reede was in the house. On the previous
Saturday he had seen the notice referred to in the
Era newspaper, and also tie advertiseuiefit relating
to "Les Pauvres de Paris." He believed that
every one of the actors had heard or read the
notice.

The Chief Baron said they really could not go
into this matter. They had nothing to do with
what the actors had heard cr read. •

The witness then further stated that in conse-
quence of the notice he was prevented from selling
the right of representing the piece to a country
manager, which was a considerable source of profit
to the author of a successful piece.
Crois-xamined by Mr. James—l am an actor.
Ido what is called the heavy father busine s. (A
laugh.) I played Mr. Ralph Vernon in my own
piece. There was a very good house on the first
night. Ido not know that Mr. Laurence Levi had
anything to do with the theatre. I only know Mr.
Payne as the manager. The piece was played for
about three weeks at the Strand Theatre ; it was
afterwards played at the Victoria Theatre. The
manager of that theatre gave us 2/. for permission
to represent it. (A laugh.) This was after it bad
been played 12 nights. The piece was not damned
after it had been played about the same number of
nights at the Victoria. It was as successful

-------
as such pieces generally _ --
are. The piece
was never printed, and he did not re,,oi,ter it under
the Copyright Act. It took him about two days
to write it.
Mr. James here said it appeared to him that this
evidence put an end to the plaintiffs' case, for by
the Bth section of that Act, it was specially declared
that an author or other person should not be en-
titled to any benefit from its provisions unless
certain conditions, one of which was that the work
should be duly registered, were complied with.
The cross-examination of the witness, however,
Was continued. He said,—l do not consider my
piece a translation from the French. I had a
general idea, and acted upon that, and I consider
the piece played at the Strand Theatre to be an
original piece. I believe a translation of the