The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-06-15 00:00:00

work in quest:en woe within the provisions of the
41st of 'the Kiug, then certainly the .Plaintiff. coal
entitled in recover, wettest the Defendant should be-1
able to peose +kat when the sale of the cepyrigkt
took place It wee completely encowditieeet; noel &lei
In point of Act the Plaintiff had disposed of to the
I.Defentlnnt every right which be possessed as the au-
thor, whether existing or thereafter to exist. This
was a question of very considerable importune,. be-
cause hitherto it had been considered auteagall =voic-
e - • . sellers, se welt as booksellers, that the copyright of
ati *, • /i musical composititen did not, as io literary wicks,
lsevert to the author, bet benne vested in the public
Nenerelly ; sad soder thieknpressio• many rideable
eincepositions bad bees teyrieted by esverationiic•-
.
• tellers..
John Mackey, who had bees 90 'tan rid Old Oat-
ployearet of Mr.:-Weller, was then calkrk Be spoke
of conversations which be had with Mr. Latour, re-
- ,apecting Ls Rektor de Windsor, in which Mr. La..
Amor said that Mr. Weller ought to hive made hies a
on account of the-sale which the work had.
sll.lpeo being esaudoed as to the contract made between
- PD.,. Latest aed Mr.Wsller epos the sale of the copy.
• sethrt, he said it was a receipt.
• • On being cross-eitantined by Mr. Sosrlett, 4pkeeld
that this receipt was for 311. Ws. for the
of Li iletepr de 7/indsor, bat it was only vivid.
by Mr. Latour, and was sot witnessed by any pep;
lair
Mr.-ScAnstrr 'Low referred to. the Act of the Abet
.oishe Hiog,4l4o6served, this& in order- to loin
the licence of ei:nulisor to st.lcookseller to eillilldi
work valid, it Sleet be 'Undoes.," two peranollev,
This had evidently net bests the ease is the prase(
instants • I T'l • •
Mr. Janice AllsOT was clearly is(nginlen that the
Plaintiff was entitled to recover, est ally on the
ground that the Defeaclent bad no legal licence, but
on the rights which he possessed, in common -with
other authors, in the copysight of his work' at .the
expiration of 14 years. ,! :1.4
A verdict was then taken for the Plaintiff, De-
luges 100$., the Plaintiff agreeing to assign his title
tq the copyright for the cleaning 14 ',wire.

KELLY V. DAVIES.
This, was an action to recover from the Defendant
a compensation for an injury which the Plaintiff bad
sestaireed, The parties were nest doer neighbours.
The Defendant wishing to erect a shed on bis pre-
mises, asked permission to build it against a wall
belonging to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff gave him
leave, at the same time cautioning him not to injure
bis wall. The Defendant proceeded with his work,
and cot foorteen holes In the wall, at two feet dis-
tance from each other, and placed rafters in thee,
upon which the roof was laid, and immediately after
the roof of the Plaintiff's building and the wall fell
in. The present action was brought to recover a
compensation 'for the injury. On the part of the
Defendant it was contended, that the bedding fell
in consequence of the Plaintiff having about seven
moths before cat away two of the tie.beams oat of
three which supported the roof. Verdict for the
rhsiatiff—Dsmages, 131.; costs, 404.
• •t i VICKIE b. CRACENSI.L.
This wises actiop by the Plaintiff, a tallow-than.
dler, in South Molton-street, to recover from the
• Defendant 121. 4d. being the value of a parcel of can-
dles soot by him to Lord Pore, at Thorndon-Loll.
• The Defendant was a common carrier. The beset.
„keeper of Lord Petra stated, that she ordered the
'candles, which were to be Dent to Lord Petre's seat,
Beckenham, in Norfolk ; but they were to be
forwarded first to Thorodoo hall. Witness had a
;barrel of otter sent by the same conveyance, which
reached Thorndon-hall safe, but she never heard of
the candles. She was house-keeper at Beckenham,
.and-wes not at Therodon till some months after the
the candles ought to have arrived there; they
meter came to Beckenham. The porter of the Plain-
tiff proved the delivery of the goods at the Defend-
ant's waggon-office, at the Blue Boar, in Aidgate.
for the Defendant, stated that the
Plaintiff had not proved that the goods never were
delivered. It only appeared, that the house-keeper,
who was not at Therndon-hall for some months af-
ter the transaction, bad never heard of their arrival
there. He had also another objection. In every
coast in the declaration, it was stated that the De-
fendant undertook to carry the goods from the Blue
Boar in Whitechapel, in the County of Middles's, to
Thorndon- hal4 in the county of Essex. TMs de-
scription was incorrect, the Blue Boar was in Aki-
.gate, in the City of Loodon and not in the County
of Middlesex, as stated in the record.
Mr. Justice MINOT held this to be a fatal objec-
_ tion, and the Plaintiff was nonssited. •
COCIRT Or COMMON PLEAS, )wee 13.
DANISH IL 0. COLLINS AND OVIti&S.
This was an action upon the Statute fora trespass,
under the Game Laws, Against the above Defendant
and three others, namely IL Wilkins, J. Seers, and
G. Alderson.
'the Plaintiff is Lord .of the Manor of Sunbury,
on which Port.lane farm is situate, in the occupation
of G. Collins; and ori the 13th of November last,
the Defendants were met by the Plaintiff's game-
• keeper, crossing a field with a brac• of greyhounds
sod spasiels; the property of Collins. The game-
keeper, on crois4samibation, cUd-Cot see any game
Warted es, run, but averred that the Defendants were
in the act or cooping.
This was the trespass complained of, to which was
added a charge of breaking down the Plaintiff's pale.
ings;end the question now agitated Wei, whether all
or any of these Defendants were qualified, under the
palate to hunt or coterie with dogs for the purpose
of killing game, subject to a penalty of 51. in faller,
Of such qualilic:atiun.
It appeared In evidence, for jhe Defendants, that
Collins wait the owner of the dogs, for which he
took out a certificate, and that his property consisted
of a sreall'larm, his own freehold, aad other premises,
producing an annual rent of neer 3001. This was ad.
knitted to bee dee tpielilliation on thOpart of Collins,
het it was strongly week by Mr. SO9/001 Vaughan,
for the Plaintiff, :that the ethee three Defendants not
having, sheiro any qvalificatialctivie septa wet,
liable to peneltt a each:
.IWo*.

.

i
t
1
f~
~ ~,
r

Mr:irOm 11117plitttf." TEA:rids
Morbid, tritAlielifilleal pale i4seilied itself into two
questloes—tie'yeitellifWV:iritl the other of fact, if
the beeeiseil oir opinion that he musical