The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-30 00:00:00

LAW IN TELLIG 81N CE.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, July 29.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
THE HAYMARKET THEATRE—" USED UP."
MATHEWS V. WEBSTER.

Mr. ROMILLT applied this morning, according to pre-
vious arrangement, on behalf of Mr. C. Mathews, the per-
former, for an injunction to restrain the defendant, the lessee
of the Haymarket Theatre, from performing a piece called
Used Up, which the plaintiff alleged was composed and written
by him. The Learned Counsel in making the application ob-
served, that the Court would find as great and pointed contra-
dictions in the affidavits that had been tied on both sides as
ever he had met with in his life.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—On what question ?
Mr. ROMILLY—On the question of who was the composer
of the work. There were, however, certain points on which
,there was no difference. There was no difference as to the fact
that late in the year 1843 it occurred to both the plaintiff and
the defendant to bring out upon the English stage a piece
founded upon a French one, called L'Homrne Blaze. Mr;
Mathews, the plaintiff, was at Paris when that piece
was performed, and being struck with its merit, he
communicated the fact to the defendant, Mr. Webster. That
gentleman applied to a Mr. Bourcicault to translate the work,
and ultimately it was arranged that Mr. Bourcicault's transla-
lation should be submitted to Mr. Mathews, and
that he should make such alterations in the piece
as he thought necessary to adapt it to the Eng-
lish stage. Mr. Bourcicault in his translation of the
piece denominated it Bored to Death, but Mr. Mathews,
after making various alterations, christened it Used Up; and
under that title it had been performed at the Haymarket Theatre.
The principal question for the consideration of the Court would
be, and exceedingly difficult it was to determine, what was the
amount of the alterations and revisions that had been made
in the piece by the plaintiff, he asserting that
those alterations and revisions were so very considerable
as almost to amount to a re-writing of the play ; while,
on the other hand, Mr. Webster and Mr. Bourcicault
contended they were very slight. Mr. Webster stated,
as the Learned Counsel understood, that it was the usual
practice at Theatres, when a piece was about to be
brought out, to submit the part that was to be performed by
any eminent actors to them, in order that they might make
any alterations they thought best to suit their style of acting ;
that had been done in this case with respect to Mr. Mathews ;
but Mr. Webster asserted that the copyright of that
piece still remained with him. The original manuscript of the
piece was not in existence. Nothing was forthcoming but the
copy that had been made by the copyist of the theatre from the
translation of Mr. Bourcicault, with the alterations made by
Mr. Mathews.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired under what Act Mr.
Romilly moved?
Mr. RoauLLY—The 3d and 4th William IV., chap. 15,
which was an Act to amend the laws relating to literary pro-
perty, and also under the sth and 6th of Victoria, chap. 45.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR inquired what was the position
of the plaintiff ? Was he an actor alone, or both actor and
author ?

ROMILLY said both. There was nothing in the fact of
a gentleman being an actor that prevented him being a com-
poser. Mr. Mathews had been the author of vari,us dramatic
pieces, which had met with great success on the British stage.
He had also altered various dramatic pieces, and it was very
probable that the name he had given them had greatly tended
to their popularity.
The Vic E-CHANCELLOR—You think, Mr. Romilly, that the
title Used Up is more calculated to attract than Bored to
Death ?—( Laughter.)
Mr. ROMILLY considered that it was a most important
point in a dramatic piece to give it such a title as
would induce the public to go and see it. Now
there was no dispute about the title being Mr. hlathews's, and
there was also no dispute that Mr. Mathews made additions to
the piece—the only dispute was the extent of those additions.
There was no dispute that from the 17th night of its performance
to the 77th, the piece was announced in the bills as the piece
of Mr. Mathews: for seventeen nights it was acted without the
name of the author. There was no dispute that the
piece was now acted under the same title that Mr.
Mathews gave it, and the only reason for its being acted with-
out the name of the author for seventeen nights was, that Mr.
Mathews bad told Mr. Webster, if it was successful, he should
claim to be the au.hor of it. Mr. Webster stated that Mr.
Mathews's name was given in the bill as the author of the
piece while he was in Dublin ; that he was ignorant of it, and
that Mr. Bourcicault stated to him that Mr. Mathews came to him
and asked his leave to put his name to it, as it would do him
good in the country, and that he, Mr. Bourcicault, gave him
permission to do so. Now that statement was denied by Mr.
Mathews from the beginning to the end. Under such cir-
cumstances, the great question was, what was the quantum of
alteration

The VICE-CHArrcttLoß wished to know whether the ques-
tion depended upon that alone?
Mr. RoaeILLY observed that he did not know that it did,
but this was certain, that as far as the alterations were con-
cerned Mr. Webster had no right to perform the piece contain-
ing them.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR. had some doubt upon that point.
If Air. Webster had stated to Mr. Alathews that he had a

Frelich piece and had asked him to translate it and adapt it for
the English stage, then he would have been the author; but the
case would have been different if he had only asked him to

touch it up.
Mr. ROMILLY then proceeded at considerable length to
read the affidavits of the plaintiff and derendant, the affidavits
of various parties in support and against the application, and
also the affidavit of Mr. Mathews in reply, and concluded by
expresiing a confident hope that the Court would grant the in-
junction he asked.
Air. ROGERS followed on the same side.
Mr. Wool) appeared on behalf of Mr. Webster. He felt
convinced that the Court would not for a moment
entertain the application, for the bill was totally
inconsistent with the whole claim set up by the plaintiff. He
had on that bill asserted that he was the whole composer of the
piece, while now he admitted that there were some parts of it
in Mr. Bourcicault's handwriting. Upon a Bill so framed he
submitted that the Court would not grant the partial relief
asked by the present motion ; he thought, looking at all the
facts that were stated, that it was impossible for the
Court to come to any other conclnsion than that
the plaintiff was not the author of the work. The plaintiff asserted
in his bill that he was, but finding that that allegation would not
benefit him, his Learned Counsel had most adroitly put forth
an ,ther case, which was that he had made alterations in the
work, and that those alterations entitled him to designate him-
self the author. The Learned Counsel thought if such a doc-
trine was to hold good, Garrick and Colly Cibber would
have a good right to lay claim to the authorship of the
works of Shakspere. Now, Mr. Webster had paid Mr. Baur-
cicault for translating the work, and he had registered it also
in the Dramatic Authors' Society, and what, he would ask,
could have induced him to de so if the piece was the work of
the plaintiff? Added to this, Mr. Mathews was a member of
that Society, and if the piece was his, why did he not register it
himself ?
The VICE- CHANCELLOR—He has registered it according to
the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Woon—Yes, sir ; but that was because his counsel, Mr.
Rogers, told him he could not file that bill without it; but he
has never registered himself in the Society as the author.
Now, on the part of Mr. Webster, there Kere no
less than three acts of ownership, but not one on the part
of the plaintiff, until they came to the fact of the insertion of
the plantiff's name in the bill, and what was the cause of
that? Why Mr. Webster went to Ireland, and while he was there
the name of Mr. Mathews was put in the bill as the
author of the piece, by the permission of Mr. Boor-
cicault, Mr. Mathews having stated to him that
it would assist him in his country engagements,
if Mr. Bourcicault would allow him to do so. As to the
title, it would be preposterous to say that because the name of
a piece was changed by a party that he should therefore have
the copyright of the work. On the whole he felt no doubt
that the Court, on looking at the whole case, would find, to use
a cant phrase in the piece, that there was "Nothing in it."—
( Laughter. )
Mr. BEVAN followed on the same side, submitting that no
case had been made out on the part of the plaintiff, either for
an injunction or for the trial of an action. Under these cir-
cumstances, he submitted that the motion ought to be refused
with costs.

Mr. ROMILLY replied. He believed that it had been
clearly shown that Mr. Mathews, according to common
parlance, was the author of the piece, and that
he was entitled, therefore, to the interim injunction.
When he stated this he admitted that M. Mathews must
make out his title at law.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment, ordering the mo-
tion to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiff to bring an
action at law, and also with liberty to both parties to apply to
the Court if it should be considered necessary. Leave was also
given to the plaintiff to amend th, bill.
The Court was crowded with theatrical characters the whole
day, and the case was not over till four o'clock.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CI C T.—Lewes, July 29.
The commission for Suseex IN as opened en Monday,
and, contrary to the usual practice, both Courts pro-
c,:eded to business the same day. The calendar and the
CP.US,! list are both very light, there being thirty-three
rd :.;o'hdiyet tj'ilascillei6eT%7DAth.Le
prisoners
(fiiir,,ttoiroi:li,,
)civil side.
Join Taylor, an extensive fanner, near Hartti,id, sur-
rendered to answer an indictment charging- him with
having f.ionimisly shot and wounded Joseph Dyer, with
intent to do Min some grievous bodily harm.
\ir. JouNsoN corlucted the prosecution, and Mr.
CLA tiFtsoN deiended 'he prisoner.
It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor, a little
boy, live years cf hrd gone wiiti his brother and
coilsin to fish in a pond adjoining the lam) occupied by
the prisoner, on tin, 20th of June. It would seen that
the prisoner had been annoyed by boys trespassing, and
be was observed to be walking on his own property
with a gun in his hand at the time the boys were 48134.

He went towards them, and on their running away he
pursued them, awl eventually fired his gun after them,
and the prosecutor was wounded in the hand, and like-
wise about his person. but it appeared !hat the injuries
were not of a severe or dangerous character. It was
likewise proved that when the prisoner was told of the
boy being wound( d he said he would shoot them dead if
they trespassed again.
Mr, CLARKSON, on behalf of the prisoner, urged that
there was no proof of his ew ertaining the serious inten-
tion imputed to him by the indictment, and said it was
much more probable that he should have fired the gun
with an intention to frighten the children, than to do
them any injury.
Several witnesses were called who gave him a good
character for humanity and kindness.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sen-
tenced to be imprisoned for twelve months.

POLICE IN TELLIGENC E.
(YESTERDAY.)
MAASION-HOUSE.
A man of very rude exterior and manners named
Thomas Taal, was brought before the Lord Mayor,
charged with having so severely injured a potman at a
public-house as to endanger his life.
James Leeson stated that he was on Monday night in
Qucenhithe, and he heard a great row and disturbance,
and saw the prisoner, who seemed to be the cause of the
tumult, run his head between the legs of George Prosser,
the potman of a public-heuse, and thng the potman over
his heal, by which a most serious injury was inflicted.
The patient was taken to the hospital.
It was stated that apprehensions were entertained that
the potman could not recover.
The LORD MAYOR informed the prisoner that he would
stand in a very awkward predicament if the man Who
had been so roughly assailed should die.
The prisoner, who did not seem to be influenced by
any feeling for the patient, was then remanded till Mon-
day.
George Edwards, the driver of an omnibus, was charged
with having been the cause of the death of a child.
A policeman stated that about a quarter past eight
o'clock on the 25th instant, he saw the defendant driving
an omnibus in Biskopsgate-street, and soon afterwards
he heard a scream, and saw the forewheel of the omni-
bus pass over the body of a child, named Thomas Cox,
who died a few minutes after he was picked up. The
defendant was driving at a slow pace.
A woman, who also saw the accident, stated that as
the omnibus went along the child suddenly started into
the middle of the street, and before the driver could pull
up was run over by the wheel of the vehicle. Witness
picked up the child, but the wheel had passed over his
neck and there was no chance of life.
The Lon]) MAYOR, having learned that a Coroner's
inquest had returned a verdict of " Accidental death,"
said that there had been nothing censurable in the COll-
- of the driver, and without hesitation dismissed him.
Emily Harding was charged with having attempted
to commit suicide.
The ward beadle of Queenhi:he saw the prisoner jump
into the Thames from Trig Wharf, and try most reso-
lutely to drown herself. The unfortunate creature had
been evidently drinking, and seemed to labour under the
nervous excitement frequently produced by the immode-
rate use or ardent spirits.
Richard Hewell, a bargeman, cf Brentford, saw the
prisoner pull off her shoes, and shawl and cap, and jump
off Mr. Crawford's wharf, into the river, out of which
he dragged her.
The prisoner said, that if she had chosen to dispose of
herself, nobody had a right to interfere ; and that if her
mother and sister appeared against her, she would cer-
tainly smash them, and no mistake.
The Lord Mayor directed that the medical attendant
of the Compter should see her and prescribe for her,
and that she should be brought up again on Saturday
next.