The republic., 1851-06-10

does that by an agent which 1t is not disputed he
might do ia his own proper person? The right
ia to acquire . monopoly in England for the sale
of his work; the right is personal property, which
he carries with him wherever he is, and all that ia
to be done to negotiate it he may do by another.
Where, then, can be the necessity of crossing
from Calais to Dover before giving instructions for
the publication Of his work and entering ii at Sta
TONERS Hall3 The law of England will protect his
property, and recognise his rights, and give him
redress for wrongs inflicted upon him here. In the
9th of Henry VIII the common pleas held that
aliens residing in France might maintain an action
of debt here, although aliens have no land 1t
has been held that alien. although he had never
been in this country, might maintain an action for
an injury TO his reputation contained in a libel;
and that great judge, Chief Justice Tindal, had OBJ
served that 1t would create in foreigners una-
vorable opinion of our laws if held that aliens
could not maintain action of this descriptions;
andm brother Maule likewise points to the fact of
our courts going further in allowing actions to be
brought by foreigners for running down ships upon
the high seas. If Gibbon after writing the Decline
and Fail at Lausanne, had published it there, could
it be doubted that, while domciled there he could
having caused his work to be published in London,
acquire the same right an English author2 For
such purpose, what difference can it make whe-
d
ject! In the present case, suppose itwould be ad
mitted that the defence would have been done away
with if Belini had been naturalized by act of Para
ment For these reasons we think that if an alien,
residin in his own country, were to compose lite
rary work there and should continue to reside there
without publishing his work, but should cause it
to be published in this country, he would be an au-
thor for the encouragement Of learning, and might
maintain an action against any one who should
pirate his work. We wish to be understood as
speaking OF the rights Of foreigner first publish
ing his work in England; but, il literary work
is once published, an author can only claim a
copyright by the law of the country in which it is
first published. This is the doctrine of our courts
and the Legislature must be considered as having
adopted and sanctioned it by the enactments of in
ternational statutes. Mr.. Peacock contended that
though an alien residing abroad might publish
here, he could not transfer the right to another
but If by the law Of foreign country in which he
resides the right may be assigned to publisher,
with right of again assigning, the assignee Of the
author his assignee becomes the owner of the pro-
perty 1t consists in the right Of retaining monopo-
y for the sale of work in the country in which it il
first published. Whatever right the author of this
work had Of publishing in England was transferred
by him to Ricordi and by Ricordi to the plaintiff
With regard to the authorities which have been
cited, we may perhaps be justified in saying that
they are rather in favor Of the doctrine we adopt
One point still remains. Mr.. Peacock argued that
there is upon the evidence valid assignment to
Ricordi, there being allegation that it was at
tested by two witnesses. Now, looking at the as
signment in the bill of exceptions, it might be pre-
sumed that there was such an assignment executed
as was sufficient; but at all events, we think the
title sufficient upon the statement that Beini as
signed to Ricordi, according to tho law of Milan.
This is not like conveyance Of real property in
England, or an assignment Of personally in Eng
land, which must be attestcd in particular form.
When this assignment was made it had no refer
ence to England. and it was merely sufficient to
clohe Ricordi with all the rights of property in the
opera Of La Somnambuia. The assignment by Ri |
cord to the plaintiff was made according to all the
forms of English law. Upon the whole, we think
the learned judge ought to have directed the jury
that if they believed the evidence, they should find
verdict on both issues for the PLAINTIFF and there
fore we direct uenire de nopo.