The republic., 1851-06-10

the Englishman publishes in England after the
signment, the foreigner still living abroad. You
say that the Englishman has no remedy for the in
fringement.
assign right which he did not possess. A foreign
author, who was residing abroad at the time when
the first publication of his work took place in this
country by his consent, had copyright, and that
an author in that situation could not ransier to
assignee any greater title than he had himself.
Mr. Justice MAULE.-Suppose an actual inventor
abroad sent and obtained patent in this coun-
try, would not that be good patent?
Lord CAMPBELL When had the honor of being
Attorney General l believe granted many patents
to persons abroad
Mr.. PEAcooK.-- person introduced his inven-
ton abroad. he could not afterwards come here and
obtain patent.
Mr.. Justice MAULE. So that persons might get
their bread in the world, and support their wives
and families, which was said to be laudable, by
merely printing books published abroad by other
persons?
Mr.. PxAcocx admitted that there were no words
expressly limiting the right to native-born sub
jects. man was not the author of work until
it was published He would then urge that, to
make the assignment to Rcordi valid, it should
have been attested by two witnesses.
Lord CAMPBELL said, he confessed he had little
or no doubt upon the point, but, from the high re-
spec he had for the court Of exchequer, he should
like to take further time, and the court would pro-
baby give its opinion on Tuesday.
TUESDAY, MAY "a
Present, Lord Campbell, and Justices Patteson,
Maule, Coleridge, Cresswel, and Talfourd.
The court was crowded to hear the judgment in
this case. .~
Lord CAMPBELL said: This was an action for
pirating a musical composition, entitled ga Cava-
tina from the opera of La Somnambula,'' by Bel.
lini. The declaration. which ia in the common
form, alleges that this musical composition had
first been published in England within twenty
eight years; that tho plaintiff the proprietor of
the copyright therein; and that the copyright
subsisting at the time when the grievances COM
planned of we're committed. The defendant pleads:
First, that the plaintiff was not the proprietor OF
the copyright in the declaration mentioned; se-
condly, that there was not at the time of the com
mitting of the said supposed grievances subsist-
ing copyright in the composition. The trial COM
ing on before Baron Rolfe, now Lord Cranworth,
evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff,
that the opera of La Somnambula, from which
the composition in question was taken,
composed by Bellini, an alien at Milan, in Feb
ruary, 1895 that Bellni then resided and had ever
since resided at Milanj that by the law of Milan he
was entitled to the copyright in this work, and to
assign it to any he pleased; that on the 18th of
February, 1881, by instrument in writing,
signed by him at Milan. he did, according to the
In yOfM In tha r,orht ta
alien; that such copyright and the right to as
sign the same became vested in Ricordi; that, on
the 9th Of June, 1881, Ricordi, in England, made,
signed, and sealed, attested by two witnesses, an
indenture, whereby, for a valuable consideration,
he assigned the copyright of the opera of La Som
nanbula, for and in Great Britain, to the plaintiff.
who was native. born British subject; that the
plaintiff published the opera Of La SomnambuIa in
London, on the 10th Of June, 1881; that there had
been no prior publication of it in Great Britain or
any other country that the 10th of June 1881 the
plaintiff made the usual entry at Stationers Hall in
respect ohe publication, and deposited copies at the
British Museum and other places, and on the l3thpf
May, 1874, he caused further entries to be made at
Stationers Hail. according to the 5th and 9th Victo
ria, c. As. The learned judge, in conformity with
the decision of ths court of exchcquer in "Boosey
and Purday," directed the jury that that evidence
dict tor the defendant. To this ruling bill Of
ceptions was tendered, upon which the present
writ of error was brought After listening to very
learned argument, We all Of opinion that the
evidence sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to
verdict on both the issues, and therefore there must
be oenire de nopo. The first question discussed
was, whether authors had a copyright in their
works at common law That is not essential to our
determination OF the present case; if it were, we
arc strongly inclined to agree with Lord Mans
field and other judges, who in several cases de-
clared themselves to be in favor of the COM
mon law right Of authors, but we rest our iudg-
ment on the statutes respecting literary pro-
perty, which, think, entitled the plaintiff
to maintain this action upon the evidence ad-
duced the trial. The Court of Exchequer, in
'Booscy and Purday,'4 Exchequer Reports, las,
overrulng the prior decision of that court on the
equity side, the decision of the common pleas, and
the decisions Of the Queens Bench, authorities all
directly in point, expressing opinion that in
such action the right of the plaintiff must de-
pend on the statute law of this country that the
laws Of foreign nations have no extra.territorial
power, and the proper construction of the statutes
Of Anne and Of George Ill.,, that foreign author
residing abroad not an author within their
meaning, and could not have copyright in his
works, which acts were intended for the encour-
agement Of British talent, by giving to British au-
thors monopoly in their literary works, dating
from the period Of their first publication here. The
learned judge therefore held that foreigner, by
publishing his work in Great Britain, acquired no
copyright. If these premises are sound, the infer
ence drawn from them is incontrovertible, that
British subject who purchases from foreigner
auch right as he had in his own country, cannot
be in better condition here than the foreigner
would have been himself But, with great
Difference to an opinion SO expressed, we see po
sufficient reason for thinking that it was the
intention Of the Legislature to exclude for
eigners from the benefit of the statutes. The
British Parliament has no power, and cannot
be supposed to intend to legsate for aliens beyond
the British territory; but within that territory it
has the power, and, conceive, the general
words must be presumed to do SO. The monopoly
which the statutes con ferred ia 10 he en- oved here