New-York daily tribune., 1854-08-22
HOUSE or LORDS. .-.Aug. /.

e.A--~+' NNN'@ '~@N
rights for their works se copy in flu matter of
great public interest:
HOUSE or LORDS. Aug. ], 1854.
APrrALs-THE LAW or COPYRIGHT N EELATIoS 70
FOREIGNERS.
JeServs Bcoser.
This case came before their lordshps on writ OF error
Cm decision of the Court OF Exchequei Chamber, which
Cou; had oyeraed decision # the Count Of Exche4lor,
o. bill of exceptions 10 the rlg o. 'he iinS judge
al Isl prus IL an octicn brought BY Mr. BO0sey music
seller against CLars Jefer!s. another member for IN
fnetmcut o copyright ii piece o; music Ine qlss-
ton that raised a. 70 the right OF an assignee oi
foreign author copyright IN work first published n
this country by such gree and farther OBJ cc0n was
raised by he defendant in the Court below hat there tad
been ID valid assignment 10 the then plaintiff The par
ties the well known musical publishers, ald tn ac-
ton in the Court OF EXcheGuer was an acton on ne css
for pirang musical composition en'rcd \ Clvatnt
frc m the Opera Of La S9aHarJVta, by Btlin The
plaintiff in error, Charles ,Ieaerys Of sohO-slaare,
wes tie defendant below. The declaration WAS n
the common form, and alleged that tue musical
conuo,iton aforesaid had been first published in Englai
within twcniycgh years before the acton wa DfOdglt
that the plaintiff, the now defendant IN error - an s
ie proprietor thereof and that such oopyr h was sub
s'te az tie time when IN piracy cOmpl VI vas CON-
nitre6. that the defendant the now plaintiff in error,
vrongfuy aud without the consent OF t1e palntt, the
now def nlaI ia eror, reprinted and sold sieh musical
composition. To tbs decaratonJeeys p!eadei-hrsty,
that Booey rot the proprietor Of the copyright IN the
declaration montOned and, secondly that there was not
at the lime o the alleged piracy sabssiing copyrgl It IN
The raid COmuCsOn. Issue having bccn Jouel On these
uloas the so oOn came 10 be tried before the present
lord Chancellor then Mr. Baron ROe, At tho sittngs in
Hilary Term l-J0 In proof Of the above lsue e'lence
was vtn tie trial on behalf OF BOosey that the opera
OF la S0ana.a54la Of which tie On in question
was yoriion. composed ~ Mlau ln Lombariy IN
n mouth Of February 1891 By sglor Nncenzo B'lni,
az alien then dOuiccd AID residing nt Mlani that me
said VncepzO BeRi by the law ot Milan, entitled
to the COZ wight IN the opera and musical composition,
and assign the at the time he assigned II; th on
the 18Th or February 1881, by Instrument In writing
s;qed and executed according TO the law of Milan the
sad Nncenzo BClnl assigned the sad copyright IN
the said opera to oLe G!o'Gnhi hcofuo, aso an
alien. ard ilen domcllei and resident az Miani
and that snch copyright and the right a assigning IT, ac
cordng ihe Ia" OF Milan, became vested IN Giovanni
Ricordo that the said Giovanni Rcordo on the 9ih OF
upe I-3 IN Eng land (but besg then alen and DOM
ced and resident out Of The British dOminOns, duly
sgned sealed and executed an nden.ltc between hn'e
and the plaintiff the defendant in error by whch ho a.
signed the copyright Of the opera Oi III o0aH1mD1d Tor
publication in Great Britain and Ireland; that Boo5ey was
q nayehoru Bn,ilh subject, resident Ia England, and
that lie published the Opers Of NoHeamba IN London on
the 10th Of June lsJ There had been prior publea
ton Of TIE oIera or OF the musical cosposon IN ques
tion either in the British in any other country that on
tie l0h ofJune, lsJ he made the usual entry ct station
hall in rosyec, Of the opera, and then deposited copies
i the Dr Ausean and other Institutions az by law re-
ouIred ard on me 18Th OF May 1874, be mSde further
tntTy StaoHoTs hall, under the 1;h and 9Th Wet, c.
49, On this evidence tie learned judge before whom the
action tired directed the jury tina; the evidence was
not suiclent Cntiue BOosey To verdict both or
either tie issues and they ought TO find for Jeheys
and tie jury fouud verdict ace)rngy for the then de-
udeLt bill Of exceptions "Gs rendered to the ruling
the learned judge, and WIZ OF error was brought Ia
the Excbequer Chamber, vhCl was argued alter Easter
Term lei Rhen the court held that the direction oi the
learned judge erroneous ana thut there ought to DO
new tra The preen. wt o error was then brought as
aeeins, tlGt iudgnelt.
The ior, Chancellor at tie termination ofthe arguments
submitted the following questions ior the consideration and
opinion Of the learned judges namely; 80,
-" Eirsty, NincCnZO Beiini an aien hving az hilaD,
was possessed Of literary work in which, according 20 The
laws IF Man lie had certain copyright, tho natnre and
extent Of which did 10, appear and ne on the 1870 OF
~ 1.qI f
cse executed in tie presence OF or aiestec oy tso
witnesses, assigned bis copyright 10 Giovanni Rcorio
which assignment WAS valid by the laws 9i Adiaf uo'
alui Roordo 10 this country and onihe OH otJane
1sol b. Cecd executed III u presence o. and G,tesed
by Witnesses, ior valuable consideration assgGed
cSpyllt the defendant in error, his heirs, &c., bus
only for publication in this country The plaintiff in error
without any license from the defendant Ia error, pu0shei
the sad literary work. Under the cir'umsiances did
uoh publication give nsht oi eooh 70 Tue ae'ehuAI
in trror'
"S,cndy-Iftle assignment by BelIin to Ricordo had
hcea nuLo fby deed Ges'ed BY t"o witnesses, would
that have made any and what difference
"IRrdly.-lf Btlini instead OF making an assignment
10 Ricordo while be living al han, had made the
assignment TO the defendant in error az Milan IN the same
he did TO hicaruo would nave maze any ana
what dILerenee' 49,
If the work had been printed ,nd published
at Milan b, the assignment to the defendant eFror
would il have made any anu what dfereDce!
"Fythy-if the work bad been printed and published at
Milan after the assignment 10 tie defendant in error but
before publication in this country, would It have made
any and what difference
Last'v-If tie assignment had been limited to
publication ln tbs country Wouil Il have made any ana
v bat difference
Tie learned judges, aer taking time TO consider, de-
liyered their opinions serinilln.
MIR. justice Crompton, NJ. justice Williams Mr. Jus
tee Erie MIR. Justice Wghtman Mr. Justice Malle, aud
NJ Justice CoieGEe, expressed the opinion that the
publication in ths country by Jenerys the plaintiff IN
error gave the defendant error BOOsey, right OF ac-
ton aeast him iuGsmucb that the assignment OF the
ecpvi,A aLd property therein was complete and valid
assignment.
Parke ana Mr. Baron AldersOn, ntimated contrary
Their orlsbps then took time 20 consider tie Judgment
OF the Horso, and uls morning gave Their deeisions
The Lord Chancellor il delivering bls opinion, stated
tie act Of the case and the circumstances under which
the action brought, and proceeded 20 say that the
question for their l9rcshps consideration W1s, whether
the direction gwen by hun when sitting q nlsi prus =
Baron II le Cont OF E1chequer 20 the jlry on the tra
IN that court and VIII n baC been deciqed by the Court
Of ExcLeQuer Chamber 20 be erroneous, or was not
connect her lorships had Obtained the assistance Of
ten Of the leaned judges, 10 whom they were greatly IN
debied for their able and elaborate Judgments SIX Of
these Judges were Of opinion that the copyright had been
elecirGy gned to Tie defendant in erF, while four
of ihtr lordsEps Of the contrary opinion. Ihs na
oriiy OF the Judges therefore were OF opinion that lis
direction wrong, and tha, the Court Of Exehequer
Chant wa right IN revernc his decision Crd ordering
yenire de He should have been glad ne bad not
had 10 deal with bis direction to the jury, bu, ne
would lot shrink from the duty now imposed on him, aad
be would proceed support the opinion be had expressed
in the below. Copyright Or the exclusive righi OF
multiplying copies Of work, was now regulated
entirely by statute the principal acts being the sh Anne
c. ls ana the sd George Ill $50 but the act Of Anne
wss The only which thr attention need be directed
ss the SD George III only provided for an extension Of
the time for which copyright held. The preamble Of
the Of Anne declared is object TO be the encou
sgemeui Of the publication OF useful books and II granted
10 an suhor his assigns the sole liberty OF printing and
publishing work for period of fourteen years from the
dsy on hch il first published. The question was
whether the words of the statute referred only TO British
as:ho sPplcab!s to he authors Of any country