The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-16


The House Of Lords sat juno 40, 70 reosive the
opinions Of the judges on writ Of error which WAS
argued At their lordships bar in the month oE
The Peers present were-the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Broughsm, Lord st. Leonards, and another
were-the Lord Chief Justice Of the Court Of Conn
mon Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, Mr.. Baron Parke.
Mr.. Baron Alderson, Mr.. Justice Haule, Mr. Justice
Coleridee, Mr. Justice wightman, Mr. Justice Eriss
Mr.. Justice Williams, and Mr.. Justice Crompton.
This writ of error (Jeferys vs.. Booseyl was
brought upon the unanimous judgment Of The Court
Of Exchequer Chamber. reversing Judgment Of the
was as to the right of the assignee Of . foreign
author to copyright in work first published in this
country by such assignee; and o further objection
was raised By the defendant in the court below,
the then plaintiff The parties were the well
known musical publishers, and the action in the
Court Of Exchequer was an action on the case for
tina from the opera q La sonnambula,' BY Bel
lini." The low plaintiff in error, Charles Jeharys,
Of Soho square, was the defendant below: The de-
claration was in the common form, and alleged that
the musical composition aforesaid had been first
published in England within twenty -eght years be-
fore the action was brought; that the plaintiff, the
nov defendant in error, was and Ia the proprietor
thereof, and that such copyright was su6sssting &c
the time when the piracy complained OF was com.
mitted that the defendant, the now plaintiff In err
ror, wrongfully and without the consent Of the
plaintiff the now defendant in error, reprinted and
sold such musical compositon. To this declaration
Jefsrys pleaded-frstly, that Boosey was not the
propr etOr Of the copyright in the declaration men,
tened; and, secondly that there was not at the
time OF the alleged piracy subsisting copyright in
the said composition. Issue having been joined
on these pleas the action to be tried bef0
the present Lord Chancellor, then Mr. Baron Role
the sttings In Hilary Term, 1850. In proof of the
above issue evidence was given on the trial be-
half of Boosey, that the opera of " La Sonnamba-
la" Of which the composition in question was q
portion, was composed at Milan, In Lombardy, in
the month Of February 1881, by Signor yincenzo
Milan; that the said Vincenz0 Bellini was, by the
law Of Milan entitled to the copyright in the opera
and musical composition and to assign the same a.
the time he assigned it; that on the 10th of Feb
ruary, 1884, by an instrument in writing signed AMI
executed according to the law of Milan, the said
Vinctnzo BeiDi assigned the said copyright In the
said opera to Giovanni Ricordi, also an alien,
and then don icied and resident at Milan; and that
such copyright, and the right Of assigning it, ac-
cordiDg to the law of Milan, became vested In Gio-
vanDi Rcordi; that the said Giovanni Ricordi, on
an alien, and domicilei and resident out Of the
British dominions,) duly signed, sealed and exc
cuted an indenture between himself and the plain
tiff, the defendant in error BY which he assigned
for publication in Great Britain and Ireland; that
Boosey was native born British subject resident
In England, and that he published the opera Of
"sonnambnla" in London on the 10th Of June, 1881.
Of the musical composition in question, either il
the British or in any other country; that on the
10th Of June, 1881 he made the usual entry at Sta
TONERS Hall in respect OF the opera, and then de-
posted copies in the British Museum and other in
Etituions, as by law required; and on tho 18th Of
May, 1874, he made further entry at Stationers'
Hall, under the 5th aud 9th Victoria, Q. As. Or
this evidence the learned Judge before whom the
action tried directed the jury that the evidence
was not sufficient to entitle Boosey to verdict on
both either Of the issues and that they ought Ia
find for Jefferys, and the jury found verdict &C.
cordingly for the then defendant. A bill Of excep-
lions was rendered to the ruling OF the learned
Judge, and a writ Of error was brought ia the Elk
chequer Chamber, which was argued after Easter
term, 1861, when the Court held that the direction
Of the learned Judge was erroneous, and that there
ought to be new trial. The present writ Of error
was then brought. as against that judgment.
The Lord Chancellor at the termination Of the ar
guments, submitted the following questions for the:
consideration and opinion Of the learned judges
namely a.....E
Firstly vincenzo Bellini, an alien living At Milan.
was p0ssees ed OF o httlerary work In which, &C.
cording to the laws of Milan, he had certain copy.
right the nature and extent of which did not ap.
pear; and he on the 10th Of February, 1891, by an
instrument in whiting Of that same dae. mot exc
cuted in the presence Of or at.ested by tso wit
nesses, assigned his copyright to Giovanni Ric0rd,
which assignment was valid by the laws OF Milan.
Giovanni Riccrdi came to this country, and, on
the 9Th of June, 1881, by a deed executed in the
presence Of and attesred by two witnesses, for =
valuable consideration, assigned his copyright to
the defendant III error, his heirs &c. but only for
publication in this country The plaiutff 10 error.
without any license from the defendant in error,
published the said literary work. Under these cir
cumstances. did such publication give right OF
action to- the defendant in errorl
Secondly.-If the assignment by Belliui to Ric0rdT
had been made by deed attested by two witnesses,
would that have made any and what difference?
Thirdly.-f Bellini, instead OF making an assign
ment to Ric0rdi white he was living at Milan, had
made the assignment to the defendant in error 1t
Milan, in the same manner as he did to Mcord,
would it have made any and what difference2
Fourthly-H the work had been printed and pub
iished at Milan before the assignment to the de-
PENDANT in error, would it have made any and what
difference?
Fifhly.-H the work had been printed and pub
hshed at Milan after the assignment to the defend
ant in error but before publication in this country,
would 1t have made any and what difference2
Lastly-If the assignment had NOT been limited
to publication in this country, would it have made
any and what difference?
Lord Chief Justice JRRvrs, having consulted the
other Judges asked for time TO consider these ques
lions.
This morning, the learned Judges having been
summoned to assist their lordships in hearing the
arguments in another writ Of error, took the oppor
tubity Of delivering their opinions seTiatiss.
Mr. Justice Crompton, Mr.. Justice Williams, Mr..
Justice Erie, Mr.. Justice Wightman, Mr. Justice
Maule, and Mr.. Justice Coeridge express Cd the OPT
MON that the publication in this country by Jeerys.
the plaintiff in error, gave the defendant in error,
Boosey, right Of action against him, inasmuch ~
that the assignment Of the copyrghs and property
Lord Chief Justice Jervis, the Chief Baron, Mr..
Baron Parke, and Mr.. Baron Anderson, iatim2ted
. contrary opinion.
The Lord Chancellor having, on behalf Of their
lordships offered thanks to the learned Judges for
the consideration OF and the opinions they had de-
hvered upon the questions submitted TO them, moved
that the further consideration Of the case by their
Lordshps' House be postponed.
Dk,y g.
tional particulars are given in the Hamilton SPEC.
tator, respecting the accident which occurred IN
Thursday night on the Great Western Railway,
OF seven cara. horse having stumbled on the
track, about mile east Of Thorod, was run do rn,
and the engine, tender, and two baggage cars