The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-23 00:00:00

WALKER V. HILL.

Mr. JAMES RUSSELL (with whom was Mr. Daniel)
applied to the Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, for an in-
junction to restrain the defendant from making, manu•
facturing, selling, or disposing of, or causing to be manu-
factured, ,old, &c., a certain description of axle-shaft,
for which a patent had been obtained by a Mr. Hardy,
and which the plaintiff now used.
The object of the motion was to prevent the defendant,
who, as well as the plaintiff, is resident at Birmingham,
from infringing the plaintiff's patent.
Mr. Wigram appeared for the defendant.
His Hosoun granted the injunction, without prejudice
to any motion that either party may deem fit hereafter
to make.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
The Court were engaged to-day in hearing arguments
upon a case relating to a Cornish mine, in which the
question to be determined referred to certain boundaries
and customs in Cornwall. The question, therefore, in.
volved no general interest.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
DAVIS V. ANCRA.M.
In this case Mr. Jervis had obtained a rule calling on
Mr. Moss, the plaintiff's attorney, to show cause why he
should not refund the sum of 51. ls. paid to him for costs
on an untrue representation that judgment had been en-
tered up. The application, in the first instance, was
made before the Lord Chief Baron at chambers; but his
Lordship, on the ground that an important point of pro-
fessional practice was involved, intimated that it should
be heard before the full Court, in order that such notice
might be taken of the case as it seemed to demand. The
Learned Counsel now moved, on several affidavits, and,
among others, that of the defendant himself. In that
affidavit it was stated that the action was brought to re-
cover the sum of 41. ss. 6d. Notice of trial was given
on the 2d of August, but it was also countermanded, as
were also several subsequent ones. The action was at
length tried on the 3d of July, when the plaintiff ob-
tained a verdict for the sum of 1/.75. 6d. The trial was,
however, set aside on the ground of irregularity, it being
stated that though the defendant had a good defence to
the action, it was unavailing on account of the vexatious
delays on the part of the plaintiff. Being unable to pay
81. 15s. 6d., the amount incurred by costs and other-
wise, the defendant went to the plaintiff's attor-
ney in December last, to request further time, which
the attorney at first refused, on account of the judgment
and execution having been signed, though he at length con-
sented to stay proceedings on payment of the debt,
costs, and further sums stated to be due, the whole
amount being 13/. 16s. The defendant signed a memo-
randum making his goods liable to that extent. The
money was paid in due time, and proceedings were taken,
when it was perceived that judgment had not been
signed. The plaintiff's attorney then proposed to refer
the matter to a solicitor, and correspondence ensued.
Mr. CHAMBERS now showed cause, contending that
Mr. Moss had done all in his power to save expense,
and that all the outlay was occasioned by the defen-
dant's offering vexatious obstacles to the progress of the
proceedings.
Mr. JERVIS, in reply, submitted that the rule should
be made absolute, as the affidavits of his Learned Friend
admitted the overcharge.—Rule absolute.
CHAPPELL V. I'UftDAY.
This case was argued last term, the suit being insti-
tuted for the alleged infringement of the copyright of
the opera of Fra Diarolo. The principal facts of the
case have already been laid before the public.
Counsel were heard last term in support of the rule
obtained by the defendant, either to have the verdict
entered for him on some of the issues, or to have a new
trial. _ _

Mr. CROMPTON followed this morning on the same
side. The Learned Counsel said it seemed to be admit-
ted on all hands, that the music of Fra Diavolo was the
composition of Auber, and that it was assigned by him
to Latour, and published in France before it was pub-
lished in this country either by the plaintiff or the de-
fendant. The proposition which he was prepared to
maintain was, that this species of property could
not exist in any one, except an English
author of an Engligh work, or the assignee of
such author. The decision of the case must depend
either on the statutes relating to copyright, or on the
common law of England. An attempt had been made
by his Learned Friend (Mr. Martin) to put the matter
on some general or universal law of nations, contending
that in all civilised countries such a right must exist.
How could any such right exist, when the law varied
in different countries, and when copyright was given for
such different terms ? The argument, however, had
been principally rested on the common-law right. It
was yet an open question whether any right existed, even
in the case of an English subject, independent of the
statute law ; and that question must be decided before
such a right could be claimed for foreigners. When
Ireland and Scotland were foreign countries, it was a
common matter of complaint that English books,
soon after they appeared in this country, were
republished ; and in the case of Ireland there
was a scramble amongst the Irish booksellers to see who
should first establish a kind of right to the publication
in that country. Why was it, if the arguments on the
other side were sound, that the English authors did not
seek redress in the Irish courts? A similar illustration
was to be found in the case of Mr. Dickens,
whose works were republished in America, but who had
never sought redress against the American booksellers.
With regard to the assignment pleaded in this case, how
could that alter in the least the original character of the
work ; or how could the assignor acquire any right
which did not belong to the assignee? Why was the
assignee to beplaced in a better position than the author,
or to possess any additional right ? He thought
their Lordships would pause before they recognised
the common-law right in an Englishman ; but
even if it were determined that this right existed, and
that it could pass from one English subject to another
without deed, the plaintiff would still have to show,
either.by statute or common-law right, that a property was
recognised in a French publication. It appeared to him
that there was no such right, and that he was entitled,
therefore, to have the verdict entered for the defendant.
Mr. MARTIN said, the point put by his Learned Friend
had been submitted to the Courts of France in the case
of an Italian work republished in that country, and had
been decided in favour of the assignee.
The Court intimated that they would take time to
consider their judgment. The papers were handed up
to their Lordships to assist them in coming to their
decision.

1.---.(
WILLIAMS.)
THIS DAY.)
:
ommissioNeits OF Excise.
Justicewrit of mandamus, directed to
ImTrlß.focAogotrlKEl..4ol
nNeoCf
vovero.
de
Tfi‘UoilirrElt.a
the Commissioners of the Excise, calling upon them to
express their assent in writing to a recommendation of
the Commissioner of the Court for the relief of insolvent
debtors, that the sum of 404 per annum should be paid
to the provisional assignee of the estate of Philip Hay-
ward, lately an officer in the excise, and now in receipt
of a superanuation pension of 1201. a year, that sum to
be equally apportioned among his creditors.
The insolvent, Philip Heyward, had been committed to
the prison of St. Thomas the Apostle, in the town of
Exeter. He filed a petition in the Insolvent Court there,
and obtained a hearing before the Circuit Commissioner.
He was opposed by a creditor, and ultimately the Court
made an order that he should pay 401. a year out of his
retiring pension. The practice of the Court was that the
order or recommendation by the Commissioners of the
Insolvent Courts should be transmitted to the Court of
Excise, which might or might not assent to it, in terms
of the Act of Parliament, 1 and 2 Victoria, chap. 110,
secs. 5 anti 6, which excepted those holding certain eccle-
siastical benefits, and the pay or pension of military per-
sons, or persons employed under Governraout, from the
operation of the general vesting order. To bring the matter
more clearly before his Lordship, he would read the
answer transmitted by the Court of Excise to the op-
posing creditor. It ran thus o---" Sir—The Commissioners
of Excise have considered the application made to it,
that a certain sum should be apportioned to the cre-
ditors of Philip Heyward from his superannuated allow-
ance, and they request me to state that the recommenda-
tion cannot be acceded to, as the Court has no power to
stop any part of such allowance." He contended that
the Court of Excise had that power, and therefore it
was that he moved for a mandamus.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS did not see how the Court
could interfere, as it was discretionary with the Court of
Excise whether any recommendation, proceeding from
the Insolvent Court, and affecting the stipend or pension
of any its officers, should be acceded to.
The application was refused.
IN THE MATTER OF GILBERT.
The SOLICITOR•GENEUAL Said that he understood
an applicatiln had yesterday been made by Mr. Huggins
to set aside a rule which had been granted on an exparte
statement made by himself, in the case of two infants.
Now he thought it was essentially necessary that the in-
fants should appear before the Court, as the question was
one between two guardians, and it might remain for the
children to state in whose custody they might wish to
he. He, in order to avoid any delay, would move for an
attachment against the party to whom the writ of habeas
was directed.
Mr. HuctuNs said that they had the whole of that
day to make the return to the writ, and it would cer-
tainly be done before night.
His Loebsuie said, under these circumstances, he
would not interfere, but leave the matter for discussion
before the full Court.

Two lads, by name Thomas Murphy and John Thomas,
BOW-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
were charged with stealing two pieces of bacon, the
property of James Clark, a cheesemonger, in Museum-
street.
The prosecutor stated, that at about three o'clock in
the day, on Saturday the 19th, he had occasion to leave
his shop for an instant, and on his return he missed
two pieces of
bacon from hiscounter. On going to the
door of his shop he saw the prisoners • running away,
and he then called a policeman, who overtook them and
found the bacon on them.
Edward Harris, policeman E 50, proved that prose-