A Treatise Upon the Law of Copyright

Addendum — Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902 — 2 Edw. VII. C. 15

Since this work went to press the Musical Copyright Bill mentioned on page 231 has received the Royal Assent and become law. The Act will come into operation on October 1, 1902, and its application is limited to the United Kingdom. The Act gives the owner of copyright music power to seize pirated copies of his works from any person who may hawk, carry about, sell, or offer for sale the same. To exercise this power he may proceed in one of two ways. He may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction, and on primâ facie evidence the court will by order authorise a constable to seize the alleged pirated copies, or he may without applying to the court himself authorise a constable in writing to seize such copies. On the copies being seized by the constable they must be brought before the court, and on proof that they are pirated copies the court will order them to be destroyed or delivered to the owner of the copyright. If the owner authorises the seizure without an order from the court and fails to prove his case he might be liable in damages. If, therefore, the owner is not quite sure of his case he should first obtain the order of the court, which will relieve him from all responsibility, except costs, in the event of his failing. The Bill as originally brought into the House of Lords contained a clause empowering a court of summary jurisdiction to inflict a summary penalty on persons dealing with pirated music. It also proposed to give the court power to order a constable to search for pirated music on suspected premises. These remedies, however, were considered by the House of Commons to be too drastic and were omitted from the Act.

Footnotes

1 “The Law and History of Copyright in Books,” by Augustine Birrell, 1899.

2 13 and 14 Car. 2, c. 33.

3 Eyre v. Walker (1735), 4 Burr., 2325; Motte v. Falkner (1735), 4 Burr., 2326; Walthoe v. Walker (1736), 4 Burr., 2326; Tonson v. Walker (1752), 4 Burr., 2326.

4 (1760), 1 W. Black, 301.

5 Osborne v. Donaldson (1765), 2 Eden, Ch. Cas., 327.

6 (1769), 4 Burr., 2303.

7 (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.

8 (1769). 4 Burr., 2303.

9 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15, 2.

10 Infra, Section I.

11 Infra, Section II., p. 36. Foreign works first published in certain foreign countries are protected subject to the conditions of the International Copyright Acts, and are dealt with in a separate chapter. Chapter X., p. 193.

12 This requisite for protection is extremely doubtful. Probably there is no restriction as to nationality of the author. See infra, Section III., p. 42.

13 Infra, Section IV., p. 46.

14 Infra, Section V., p. 46.

15 Infra, Section VII., p. 56.

16 Clementi v. Golding (1809), 2 Camp., 25; Storace v. Longman (1788), 2 Camp., 26 n.; Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298.

17 Southern v. Bailes (1894), 38 Sol. J., 681.

18 Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R. 9 Eq. 324.

19 Walter v. Howe (1881), 17 Ch. D., 708; and see Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T., 157.

20 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

21 Boosey v. Whight [1900], 1 Ch., 122.

22 Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374. Both this case and Boosey v. Whight are cases of infringement, but they would seem equally to apply to a question whether a certain scroll or document would be a “book” entitled to copyright under the Acts.

23 See Stirling, J., in Boosey v. Whight [1899], 1 Ch., at p. 842.

24 See Stirling, J., in Boosey v. Whight [1899], 1 Ch., at p. 842.

25 White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298. See p. 38.

26 (1801), 1 East., 358; and see White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298; Tonson v. Walker (1752), 3 Swanst., 672.

27 Black v. Murray (1870), 9 M., 341; Sweet v. Benning (1855), 16 C. B., 459.

28 Bogue v. Houlston (1852), 5 De Gex and Smale, 267.

29 Low v. Ward (1868), L. R., 6 Eq., 415.

30 Leslie v. Young [1894], A. C., 335.

31 Lindley, L. J., in Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 223.

32 [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

33 [1900], A. C., 539.

34 [1900], A. C., p. 548.

35 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

36 21 Ch. D., at p. 378.

37 Infra, p. 16.

38 Infra, p. 16.

39 Infra, p. 18.

40 Infra, p. 20.

41 Infra, p. 20.

42 Infra, p. 22.

43 Infra, p. 29.

44 Infra, p. 225.

45 Infra, p. 19.

46 Kenrick v. Danube Collieries (1891), 39 W. R., 473.

47 Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420.

48 Chilton v. Progress [1895], 2 Ch., 29; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., at p. 318.

49 Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., 420.

50 Davis v. Comitti (1885), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539.

51 Fourmat v. Pearson (1897), 14 T. L. R., 82.

52 Infra, p. 34.

53 Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

54 Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; see infra, p. 148.

55 Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.

59 Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Tamlyn, at p. 299 n.

60 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270.

61 Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539.

62 Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539. See Brougham, L., in Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 965.

63 Infra, p. 26.

64 Infra, p. 25.

65 Infra, p. 25.

66 Infra, p. 24.

67 Infra, p. 23.

68 Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308; Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; Cary v. Faden (1799), 5 Ves., 24; Cary v. Longman (1801), 1 East., 358; Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168.

69 Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80; 1 Cox. Ch. Cas., 283.

70 Taylor v. Bayne (1776), Mor. Dic., 8308.

71 Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Page Wood, V. C., at p. 701.

72 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270; Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R., 5 Ch., 279; Kelly’s Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374; Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R. (Canada), 321.

73 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves. 270.

74 Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269.

75 Cornish v. Upton (1861), 4 L. T. (N. S.), 862.

76 Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

77 Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.

78 [1893], 1 Ch., 218.

79 Bowen, L. J. [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 227.

80 Lindley, L. J. [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 222; and see Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.

81 (1863), H. and M., 603.

82 (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

83 L. R., 14 Eq., at p. 414.

84 (1875), L. R., 19 Eq., 623.

85 (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

86 (1863), 1 H. and M., 603.

87 (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

88 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

89 (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

90 Ibid.

91 21 Ch. D., at p. 379; and see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131.

92 (1898), 78 L. T. (N. S.), 613.

93 (1863), 1 H. and M., 603.

94 (1884), 26 Ch. D., 637.

95 (1886), 2 T. L. R., 291.

96 Walford v. Johnston, 20 D., 1160.

97 Maclean v. Moody, 20 D., 1154; and see Kelly’s Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374.

98 Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.

99 L. R., 3 Eq., at p. 723.

100 Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77; Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

101 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; and see Hall v. Whittington (1892), 15 Vic. L. R., 525.

102 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

103 (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.

104 (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324.

105 [1894], A. C., 335.

106 (1829) 1 R. and M., 73; see also King v. Reed (1804), 8 Ves., 223.

107 (1847), 11 Jur., 344.

108 (1732), cited 2 Bro. P. C. 138; and Ambl., 694.

109 (1847), 9 D., 748.

110 Southern v. Bailes (1894), 38 Sol. J., 681; see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131.

111 See Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., at p. 271.

112 (1821), Jac., 311; and see Marzials v. Gibbons (1874), L. R., 9 Ch., 518.

113 (1839), 2 Beav., 6.

114 (1843), 5 D., 416.

115 (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

116 (1858), 31 L. T. (O. S.), 18; 6 W. R., 352.

117 Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951; see Moffat and Paige v. Gill [1902], C. A., April 25.

118 Gyles v. Wilcox (1740), 2 Alk., 142.

119 Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77; Chatterton v. Cave (1875), 10 C. P., 572; (1878), 3 A. C., 483.

120 Tree v. Bowkett (1896), 74 L. T., 77; Hatton v. Kean (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268; Chatterton v. Cave (1875), L. R., 10 C. P., 572; (1878), 3 A. C., 483.

121 Wood v. Boosey (1867), 7 B. and S., 869; Boosey v. Fairlie (1877), 7 Ch. D., 301; (1868), 9 B. and S., 175.

122 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4.

123 Tonson v. Walker (1753), 3 Swanst., 672.

124 (1801), 1 East., 358; and see Mason v. Murray cited, 1 East, 360 (Gray’s Poems).

125 (1852), 1 Drew, 353.

126 1 Drew, at p. 365.

127 (1787), Mor. Dic., 8310.

128 (1870), 9 M., 341; and see Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369, at p. 373; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418; Moffat & Paige v. Gill [1902], C. A., April 25.

129 Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.

130 (1841), 3 D., 383.

131 3 D., at p. 387.

132 Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 80, per L. C., at p. 83.

133 (1870), 9 M., at p. 352.

134 (1801), 5 Ves., 709.

135 (1839), 3 Jur., 217.

136 (1840), 11 Sim., 51.

137 (1838), 3 My. and Cr., 711.

138 (1855), 16 C. B., 459; see Hodges v. Welsh (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R., 266.

139 16 C. B., Crowder, J., at p. 491.

140 See infra, p. 240.

141 [1900], A. C., 539.

142 Ibid.

143 [1900], A. C., at p. 545.

144 [1900], A. C., 539.

145 See p. 15.

146 See pp. 37, 223.

147 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 65.

148 [1900], A. C., 539.

149 Ibid.

150 See infra, p. 240.

151 (1869), 20 L. T. (N. S.), 435.

152 Such an article as this, a mere scheme or plan for arranging material, would not be protected under the law of patents; in re Cooper (1902), 19 Pat. Des. and Trade Mark Cases, 53; in re Johnson (1902), 19 Pat. Des. and Trade Mark Cases, 56.

153 (1882), 47 L. T. (N. S.), 432.

154 (1885), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 539.

155 [1894], 3 Ch., 420; see American Law, p. 242, infra, where a similar article was protected. It has also been protected in Victoria, Hanbury v. Dumsday (1884), 10 Vic. L. R., Eq., 272.

156 Lord Herschell, L. C. [1894], 3 Ch., 420, at p. 424.

157 Griffin v. Kingston (1889), 17 Ont. Rep., 660; see Church v. Linton (1894), 25 Ont. Rep., 131, where some of the dicta in the above case were disapproved.

158 [1900], 1 Ch., 122.

159 Chilton v. Progress Printing and Publishing Co. [1895], 2 Ch., 29.

160 Lindley, L. J. [1895], 2 Ch., at p. 34.

161 (1852), 5 De Gex and Smale, 267; see Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94; Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234.

162 See 21 Ch. D., 380.

163 Parker, V. C., 5 De Gex and Smale, at p. 274.

164 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369; and see Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.

165 At p. 377

166 (1981), 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452.

167 (1895), 43 W. R., 266; and see Guggenheim v. Leng (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.

168 Strong v. Worskett (1896), 12 T. L. R., 532; Fisher v. Folds (1834), 1 Jones, Ir. Ex., 12.

169 (1896), 12 T. L. R., 532.

170 Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620.

171 Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., at p. 427.

172 Bach v. Longman (1777), 2 Camp., 623; Clementi v. Golding (1809), 2 Camp., 25; White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298; D’Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288; Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854). 4 H. L. C., 815.

173 Coleman v. Wathen (1793), 5 T. R., 245; Macklin v. Richardson (1770), Amb., 694; D’Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288.

174 Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326; Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 309. See p. 222, infra.

175 Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.

176 See Walter v. Lane [1900], H. C., 539.

177 Kenrick v. Danube Collieries (1891), 39 W. R., 473; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; Exchange Telegraph v. Gregory [1896], 1 Q. B., 147; Exchange Telegraph v. Central News [1897], 2 Ch., 48; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., at p. 2417; Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch. R., 121, 510.

178 Blanchett v. Ingram (1887), 3 T. L. R., 687.

179 (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298.

180 (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.

181 Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch. R., 121, 510.

182 Clementi v. Walker (1824), 2 Bar and Cres., 861.

183 Routledge v. Low (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100; Jeffreys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; Boosey v. Purday (1849), 4 Ex., 145; Chappell v. Purday (1845), 14 M. and W., 303; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.

184 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).

185 Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and S., 80.

186 Reid v. Maxwell (1886), 2 T. L. R., 790.

187 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182.

188 Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De. G. and S., 80; as to author’s nationality or residence, see p. 42.

189 (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 983.

190 (1824), 2 B. and C., 861, at p. 867.

191 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.

192 See p. 193.

193 Boucicault v. Delafield (1863), 1 H. and M., 597; Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.

194 Boucicault v. Delafield (1863), 1 H. and M., 597; Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267; Ex p. Dobson (1892), 12 N. Z. L. R., 171.

195 Boucicault v. Chatterton (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.

196 (1849), 13 Q. B., 257.

197 D’Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288; see Willes, J., in Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., at p. 2310; Delondre v. Shaw (1828), 2 Sim., 240.

198 (1839), 10 Sim., 329.

199 Chappell v. Purday (1845), 14 M. and W., 303; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; Boosey v. Davidson (1849), 13 Q. B., 257; Boosey v. Purday (1849), 4 Ex., 145; Ollendorff v. Black (1850), 20 L. T., 165; Boosey v. Jefferys (1851), 6 Ex., 580; Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and Sm., 80.

200 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

201 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

202 (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.

203 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

204 Ibid.

205 The Fine Arts Act, 1862, is expressly confined to the works of authors who are British subjects or resident within the Dominions of the Crown; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68.

206 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

207 Ibid.

208 (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.

209 (1868), L. R., 6 Eq., 415.

210 (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.

211 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

212 Art. 6, “Report Copyright Commission,” 1878, p. lxix.

213 Scrutton on “Copyright,” 3rd ed., p. 121.

214 Chamier on “Literary Copyright,” p. 13.

215 Lawrence v. Smith (1822), Jac., 471; Murray v. Benbow (1822), Jac., 474 n.; Cowan v. Milbourn (1867), L. R., 2 Exch., 230; Burnett v. Chetwood (1720), 2 Mer., 441; see 9 Will. III. c. 35 (1698).

216 Stockdale v. Onwhyn (1826), 5 B. and Cr., 173; Dodson v. Martin (1880), 24 Sol. J., 572.

217 Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; Dr. Priestley’s case, cited 2 Mer., 437.

218 Hime v. Dale (1803), 2 Camp., 27 n.; Walcot v. Walker (1802), 7 Ves., 1.

219 Wright v. Tallis (1845), 1 C. B., 893; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215; MacFarlane v. Oak Foundry (1883), 10 R., 801; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418; Ward v. Beeton (1874), L. R., 19 Eq., 207; Metzler v. Wood (1878), 8 Ch. D., 606; Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 2 K. and J., 123.

220 Wright v. Tallis (1845), 1 C. B., 893.

221 Cary v. Faden (1799), 5 Ves., 24; Reade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 492.

222 Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.

223 See point suggested, 1 C. B., 902.

224 Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Newman v. Pinto (1887), L. T. (N. S.), 31.

225 Dodson v. Martin (1880), 24 Sol. J., 572.

226 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 11, 13, 24.

227 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 24.

228 Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620; Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94.

229 Low v. Routledge (1864), L. R., 1 Ch., 42; Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 444.

230 Russell v. Smith (1848), 12 Q. B., 217; Lacy v. Rhys (1864), 4 B. and S., 873; Marsh v. Conquest (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418; Clark v. Bishop (1872), 25 L. T., 908.

231 Goubaud v. Wallace (1877), 36 L. T. (N. S.), 704; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

232 Warne v. Lawrence (1886), 34 W. R., 452.

233 (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.

234 (1880), 49 L. J. Ch., 412.

235 Henderson v. Maxwell (1877). 5 Ch. D., 892; Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

236 Hogg v. Maxwell (1866), L. R., 2 Ch., 307; Correspondent v. Saunders (1865), 11 Jur. (N. S.), 540; Primrose Press v. Knowles (1886), 2 T. L. R., 404.

237 Talbot v. Judges (1887), 3 T. L. R., 398; Schove v. Schmincké (1886), 33 Ch. D., 546.

238 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

239 Walter v. Howe (1881), 18 Ch. D., 708; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

240 Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324.

241 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

242 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500; see also Prowett v. Mortimer (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 414.

243 Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 194. See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24.

244 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11.

245 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

246 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 19.

247 (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.

248 Per Coleridge, L. C. J., in Harris v. Smart (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.

249 (1887), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864.

250 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B., (N. S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1848), 7 C. B., 4; Chappell v. Sheard (1855), 2 K. and J., 117.

251 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500

252 40 Ch. D., at p. 506.

253 (1864), 10 L. T. (N. S.), 838.

254 As to what is publication, see p. 38.

255 Wood v. Boosey (1867), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223.

256 Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 270; Collingridge v. Emmott (1887), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864; and see Page v. Wisden (1869), 20 L. T. (N. S.), 435; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

257 Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.

258 Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew, 353; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.

259 Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

260 Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

261 Henderson v. Maxwell (1876), 4 Ch. D., 163.

262 Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

263 Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.

264 Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 434.

265 Bacon, V. C., in Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.

266 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

267 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq. 104; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

268 Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; 49 L. T. (N. S.), 339.

269 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

270 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

271 Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.

272 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., per Lindley, L. J., at pp. 301 and 302.

273 Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.

274 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

275 Low v. Routledge (1864), 33 L. J. Ch., 717; 10 L. T. (N. S.), 838.

276 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182.

277 Cassell v. Stiff (1856), 2 K. and J., 279.

278 Fairlie v. Boosey (1879), 4 A. C., 711.

279 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11; Hildesheimer & Faulkner v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452.

280 Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.

281 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 12.

282 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 14.

283 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; 48 L. J. Ch., 673.

284 In re The Young Duchess (1891), 8 T. L. R., 41.

285 Ex parte Poulton (1884), 53 L. J., Q. B., 320; in re Hall (1899), 24 Vict. L. R., 702.

286 Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; see in re Martin (1884), 10 Vict. L. R., Law., 196.

287 Blackburn, J., Graves’ case, 10 B. and S., at p. 688.

288 Ex parte Bastow (1854), 14 C. B., 631.

289 Ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 296; Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303.

290 Graves’ case (1869), 4 Q. B., 715.

291 Graves’ case (1869), 4 Q. B., 715.

292 Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303; ex parte Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., at p. 309.

293 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 10.

294 Ibid.

295 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 6.

296 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 7.

297 Ibid.

298 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 8.

299 (1828), 4 Bing.. 540.

300 Cf. Cambridge University v. Bryce (1812), 16 East., 317; Routledge v. Low (1868), L. R., 3 H. L., 100.

301 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 3.

302 Ibid.

303 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 3, 18.

304 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 3, 18.

305 See supra, p. 26.

306 See Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.

307 Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326; Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374; Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. Ch., 209.

308 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 65, sec. 5.

309 Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., 326.

310 See Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303, and cases there cited.

311 Baskett v. University of Cambridge (1758), 2 Burr. 661; Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.

312 See Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304; Nicol v. Stockdale (1785), 3 Swanst., 687.

313 Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391; Grierson v. Jackson (1794), Ridg. Ir., T. R., 304.

314 Universities v. Richardson (1802), 6 Ves., 689; Eyre v. Carnan (1781), 6 Bac. Abr., 509; Manners v. Blair (1828), 3 Bligh (N. S.), 391.

315 Baskett v. Cunningham (1762), Black. Rep., 370.

316 See Appendix.

317 15 Geo. III. c. 53; 41 Geo. III. c. 107, extending the privilege to Dublin; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 27.

318 (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.

319 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 3.

320 This reservation is made necessary by the decision in Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539, that the author is not necessarily the composer of the literary matter; see infra, p. 65.

321 (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718; see also Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Stannard v. Harrison (1871), 24 L. T. (N. S.), 570.

322 (1824), 2 L. J. Ch., 90, at p. 102; and see Maclean v. Moody (1858), 20 D., 1154.

323 (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.

324 7 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 280.

325 (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 453.

326 (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.

327 (1859) 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268. The decision in this case was no doubt right, but it should have been on the ground that the plaintiff was the employer or assignee of the defendant and not that he was the author.

328 See Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465; Kekewich, J., at p. 475.

329 Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.

330 (1856), 17 C. B., 427.

331 On the facts of this case the work of the servant ought to have become vested in the employer.

332 (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; and see Tree v. Bowkett (1896), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77.

333 (1874), L. R., 9 Ch., 518; and see Bowen, L. J., in Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.

334 Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686; Lauri v. Renad (1892), 3 Ch., 402.

335 Ibid.

336 [1900], A. C., 539.

337 Ibid.

338 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 18.

339 Chitty, J., in Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.

340 And in one case it was even doubted whether it applied to newspapers, Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T. (N. S.), 157.

341 Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., 218; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

342 (1856), 17 C. B., 427

343 Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.

344 As to whether a written assignment of the copyright from the author would be necessary in such a case, see infra, at p. 74.

345 (1895), 11 T. L. R., 507.

346 Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140.

347 (1855), 16 C. B.,459.

348 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; and see Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R., 130.

349 [1893], 1 Ch., 218; and see Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

350 (1855), 16 C. B., at p. 484.

351 (1881), 17 Ch. D., 708; and see Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin (1848), 16 Sim., 190.

352 [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

353 And see Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.

354 [1902], 1 Ch., 264.

355 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

356 Chitty, J., 40 Ch. D., at p. 431.

357 Brown v. Cooke (1846), 16 L. J. Ch., 140; Richardson v. Gilbert (1851), 1 Sim. (N. S.), 336; Collingridge v. Emmott (1888), 57 L. T. (N. S.), 864; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Trade Auxiliary v. Jackson (1887), 4 T. L. R., 130.

358 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.

359 See cases cited, p. 79, footnote 4.

360 See Chitty, J., Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 430.

361 See Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

362 Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.

363 Smith v. Johnson (1863), 4 Giff., 632.

364 Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.

365 Ibid.

366 Hereford v. Griffin (1848), 16 Sim., 190.

367 (1855), 16 C. B., 459.

368 (1891), 64 L. T., 452.

369 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.

370 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 15.

371 See p. 77, infra.

372 (1824), 2 B. and Cr., 861; see Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168; Storace v. Longman (1788), 2 Camp., 26 n.

373 (1814), 3 M. and S., 7.

374 (1838), 9 Sim., 151.

375 (1839), 8 L. J. Ch., 216; see Hodges v. Welsh (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R., 266.

376 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; see M’Lean v. Moody (1858), 20 D., 1154; Jefferys v. Kyle (1856), 18 D., 906; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.

377 4 H. L. C., at p. 880.

378 4 H. L. C., at p. 907.

379 Hazlitt v. Templeman (1866), 13 L. T. (N. S.), 593; Grace v. Newman (1875), L. R., 19 Eq., 623; Cox v. Cox (1853), 11 Hare, 118.

380 See Frowde v. Parish (1896), 27 Ont Rep., 526; Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

381 See p. 128.

382 See Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Eaton v. Lake (1888), 20 Q. B. D., 378.

383 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 15; Leyland v. Stewart (1876), 4 Ch. D., 419; Power v. Walker (1814), 3 M. and S., 7; Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 456; Clementi v. Walker (1824), 2 Bar. and Cres., 861; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; [See the judgment of Lord St. Leonards at p. 944; but note also that Coleridge, J., at p. 906, expressed his disapproval of the reasoning in Power v. Walker and Davidson v. Bohn]; Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611, 617, 18 D., 906; Cumberland v. Copeland (1862), 1 H. and C., 194; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860; see Drone on “Copyright,” pp. 304-316, where the soundness of the case law that assignment must be in writing is doubted.

384 Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

385 Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B., 517.

386 Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1; see contra opinion of Lord Cockburn in Wood v. Boosey (1867), 7 B. and S., at p. 897; Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.

387 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

388 Stevens v. Wildy (1850), 19 L. J. Ch., 190.

389 Ibid.

390 Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1.

391 Levy v. Rutley (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4; Colburn v. Duncombe (1838), 9 Sim., 151; London Printing and Publishing Co. v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

392 Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4.

393 Lacy v. Toole (1867), 15 L. T. (N. S.), 512.

394 Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77; Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182; Latour v. Bland (1818), 2 Stark, 382; Levy v. Rutley (1871), L. R., 6 C. P., 523; Colburn v. Duncombe (1838), 9 Sim., 151; but see Kyle v. Jefferys (1859), 3 Macq., 611, 18 D., 911.

395 Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.

396 Morris v. Kelly (1820), 1 Jac. and W., 481.

397 Dennison v. Ashdown (1897), 13 T. L. R., 226.

398 Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572; Sweet v. Shaw (1839), 8 L. J. Ch., 216; Sims v. Marryat (1851), 17 Q. B., 281; Strahan v. Graham (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 87; Thombleson v. Black (1837), 1 Jur., 198.

399 Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), 48 L. J. Ch., 682; Chappell v. Purday (1843), 12 M. and W., 303.

400 Taylor v. Pillow (1869), L. R., 7 Eq., 418; Howitt v. Hall (1862), 6 L. T. (N. S.), 348.

401 Sims v. Marryat (1851), 17 Q. B., 281; Queensberry v. Shebbeare (1758), 2 Eden Cha. Cas., 330; Williams’ “Law of Personal Property,” 15th edition, p. 523.

402 Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686.

403 Lauri v. Renad [1892], 3 Ch., 402.

404 Powell v. Head (1879), 12 Ch. D., 686.

405 (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 940; and see Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.

406 (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

407 Taylor v. Neville (1878), 26 W. R., 299; Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T. (N. S.), 77; see doubt expressed in Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., at p. 436.

408 Lucas v. Cooke (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.

409 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

410 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 434, 435.

411 Holt v. Woods (1896), 17 N. S. W. R., Eq., 36.

412 See ex parte Dobson (1892), 12 N. Z. L. R., 171.

413 See contra Howitt v. Hall (1862), 6 L. T. (N. S.), 348; Sweet v. Cater (1840), 11 Sim., 572; Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 458.

414 Rippon v. Norton(1839), 2 Beav., 63.

415 Hole v. Bradbury [1879], 12 Ch. D., 886; Stevens v. Bradbury [1854], 1 K. and J., 168; Reade v. Bentley(1857), 3 K. and J., 271; Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; ex parte Bastow [1854], 14 C. B., 631.

416 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425, per Cotton, L. J.; Tuck and Sons v. Canton (1882), 51 L. J., Q. B., 363; Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572.

417 Taylor v. Neville (1878), 26 W. R., 299; Tree v. Bowkett (1895), 74 L. T., 77.

418 (1878), 26 W. R., 297.

419 Warne v. Routledge (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 497; see Sweet v. Cater (1841), 11 Sim., 572; Stevens v. Benning (1855), 1 K. and J., 168.

420 Latour v. Bland (1818), 2 Stark, 382.

421 Willis v. Curtois (1838), 1 Beav., 189.

422 See Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 392.

423 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15 and 2.

424 See Butterworth v. Kelly (1888), 4 T. L. R., 430; Leader v. Strange (1849), 2 Car. and K., 1010.

425 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15 and 23. The remedies given by these two sections are cumulative, and may be recovered by one action; Muddock v. Blackwood [1898], 1 Ch., 58.

426 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; 39 and 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 42.

427 Ignorance will not excuse in the case of importing, but contra in the case of selling or hiring, Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.

428 Cooper v. Whittingham (1880). 15 Ch. D., 501.

429 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; and see 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 42.

430 £5 to the use of the officer of customs, remainder to the use of the proprietor of copyright.

431 Ibid.

432 Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.

433 [1901], 1 Ch., 374.

434 Cf. Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.

435 [1901], 1 Ch., 374.

436 Novella v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177; and see Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620; Cambridge University v. Bryer (1812), 16 East, at p. 322.

437 Muddock v. Blackwood [1898], 1 Ch., 58; Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251, at pp. 255 and 260.

438 Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215, at p. 223; Grimson v. Eyre (1804), 9 Ves., 341, at p. 346; Kelly v. Hooper (1841), 1 Y. and C., 197, at p. 199; Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.

439 Delfe v. Delamotte (1857), 3 K. and J., 581; but see Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251.

440 Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 R. and M., 73; Price’s Patent Candles v. Bauwen (1858), 4 K. and J., 727; Delondre v. Shaw (1828), 2 Sim., 240; Sweet v. Maughan (1840), 11 Sim., 51.

441 Eldon, L. C., in Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 400.

442 Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.

443 M’Neill v. Williams (1847), 11 Jur., 344; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215.

444 Hall, V. C., in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., at p. 372.

445 Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 8 De G. M. and G., 1.

446 Novella v. James (1854), 24 L. J. Ch., 111.

447 Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435; Platt v. Button (1815), 19 Ves., 447; Saunders v. Smith (1838), 3 My. and C., 711; Lewis v. Chapman (1840), 3 Beav., 133; Assignees of Robinson v. Wilkins (1805), 8 Ves., 224, n; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Russ. and My., 73; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311; and see Buxton v. James (1851), 5 De G. and Sm., 80.

448 Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.

449 Per Gifford, V. C., L. R., 7 Eq., at p. 39.

450 Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 444.

451 Per Turner, L. J., in Johnson v. Wyatt (1863), 2 De G., J. and S., at p. 25.

452 Lewis v. Fullarton (1839), 2 Beav., 6; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., 385.

453 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708; Lamb v. Evans [1892], 3 Ch., 462.

454 [1892], 3 Ch., 462.

455 Campbell v. Scott (1842), 11 Sim., 31; Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747.

456 Borthwick v. Evening Post (1888), 37 Ch. D., 449.

457 37 Ch. D., at p. 462.

458 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

459 40 Ch. D., at p. 507; and see Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

460 Bradbury v. Sharp (1891), W. N., 143.

461 Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324; Southern v. Bailes (1829), 38 S. J., 681.

462 Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 R. and M., 73.

463 Lewis v. Fullarton (1839), 2 Beav., 6, Langdale, M. R., at p. 11.

464 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 23. To be safe the demand in writing should be made before the writ is issued.

465 8 Anne c. 19, sec. 1; 54 Geo. III. c. 156, sec. 4.

466 Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.

467 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652; Kelly v. Hodge(1873), 29 L. T. (N. S.), 387; Emperor of Austria v. Day (1861), 3 D. F. and J., 217.

468 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; but see Delfe v. Delamotte (1857), 3 K. and J., 581; Stannard v. Harrison (1871), 19 W. R., 811.

469 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; cf. Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543.

470 Isaacs v. Fiddemann (1880), 49 L. J. Ch., 412.

471 Rooney v. Kelly (1861), 14 Ir. C. L. R., per O’Brien, J., at p. 171.

472 Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73.

473 Ibid.

474 Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., at p. 83.

475 Colburn v. Simms (1843), 2 Hare, 543; Hole v. Bradbury( 1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.

476 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 42.

477 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 44.

478 Brooke v. Milliken (1789), 3 T. R., 509.

479 Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387.

480 Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 444; see Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1850), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

481 (1846), 9 D., 1026; and see Clark v. Bell (1804), Mor. Dic., Literary Property, App., 9.

482 (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247, at p. 262.

483 56 & 57 Vict. c. 61; Muddock v. Blackwood [1898], 1 Ch., at p. 64.

484 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 16; Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.

485 Boosey v. Davidson (1846), 4 Dow. and Low, at p. 155.

486 Collette v. Goode (1878), 7 Ch. D., 842; Boosey v. Purday (1846), 10 Jur., 1038; Boosey v. Davidson (1846), 4 D. and L., 147; Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4; Barnett v. Glossop (1835), 1 Bing. N. C., 633; 1 Scott’s Rep., 621.

487 Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 194.

488 Collette v. Goode (1878), 7 Ch. D., 842.

489 Boosey v. Davidson (1846), 4 D. and L., 147; Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.

490 Ibid.

491 Collette v. Goode (1878), 7 Ch. D., 842.

492 Sweet v. Benning (1855), 16 C. B., 459; Cocks v. Purday (1848), 5 C. B., 860.

493 Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.

494 Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 736; Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; Collette v. Goode (1878), 7 Ch. D., 842; but see Leader v. Purday (1848), 6 Dow. and Low, 408.

495 Collette v. Goode (1878), 7 Ch. D., 842.

496 Ibid.

497 Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N. S.), 418.

498 Harris v. Smart (1889), W. N., 92, 5 T. L. R. 594.

499 But see Sweet v. Maughan (1840), 11 Sim., 51.

500 Eldon, L. C., in Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 394.

501 Hotten v. Arthur (1863), 1 H. and M., 603; Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

502 Ibid.

503 Boosey v. Davidson (1849), 13 Q. B., 257.

504 Wright v. Goodlake (1865), 3 H. and C., 540.

505 Kelly v. Wyman (1869), 17 W. R. 399; Stevens v. Brett (1864), 10 L. T. (N. S.), 231.

506 Coote v. Ingram (1887), 35 Ch. D., 117.

507 Maxwell v. Somerton (1874), 22 W. R., 313.

508 Walter v. Steinkopff [1892], 3 Ch., 189.

509 Wall v. Taylor (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 102.

510 Dicks v. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22.

511 Metzler v. Wood (1878), 8 Ch. D., 606.

512 Lord Romilly, M. R., in Cobbett v. Woodward (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., at p. 414; Hall, V. C., in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores, 21 Ch. D., at p. 373.

513 Piddington v. Philip (1893), 14 N. S. W. R., Eq., 159.

514 Kelly’s Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374; affirmed in the Court of Appeal.

515 Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251; Cobbett v. Woodward (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

516 Liverpool General Brokers v. Commercial Press [1897], 2 Q. B., 1.

517 Page v. Wisden (1869), 20 L. T., 435.

518 James, L. J., in Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

519 Jessel, M. R., in Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores, 21 Ch. D., at p. 378.

520 Lord Ellenborough in Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., at p. 97.

521 Novello v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177.

522 White v. Geroch (1819), 2 B. and Ald., 298; Lindley, M. R., in Boosey v. Whight [1900], 1 Ch., at p. 123.

523 Novello v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177.

524 Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73.

525 See Lindley, M. R., in Boosey v. Whight [1900], 1 Ch., at p. 123.

526 Bach v. Longman(1777), 2 Cowp., 623; D’Almaine v. Boosey(1835), 1 Y. and C., Ex., 288.

527 Nicols v. Pitman [1884], 26 Ch. D., 374.

528 Boosey v. Whight [1900], 1 Ch., 122.

529 Lord O’Hagan in Chatterton v. Cave (1878), 3 A. C., at p. 498.

530 (1855), 16 C. B., at p. 481.

531 (1875), L. R., 10 C. P., at p. 575.

532 See also Bohn v. Bogue (1846), 10 Jur., 420; Jarrold v. Heywood (1870), 18 W. R., 279; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 R. and M., 73.

533 (1878). 3 A. C., 483.

534 (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251.

535 Leslie v. Young [1894], A. C., at p. 342.

536 Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., 168; Lennie v. Pillans (1843), 5 D., 416; Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567.

537 Per Page Wood, V. C., in Tinsley v. Lacey (1863), 1 H. and M., at p. 752.

538 Per L. C. Herschell in Leslie v. Young [1894], A. C., at p. 341.

539 See Murray v. Bogue(1852), 1 Drew, at p. 369.

540 Per Cottenham, L. C., in Bramwell v. Halcomb (1836), 3 My. and Cr., at p. 738; see Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.

541 Bradbury v. Hotten (1872), L. R., 8 Ex., 1; see also Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567.

542 (1826), 2 Russ., at p. 394.

543 (1897), 13 T. L. R., 209; and see Kelly v. Hooper (1841), 1 Y. and C. Ch. C., 197; Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567.

544 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

545 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

546 40 Ch. D., at p. 507.

547 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

548 (1802), 4 Esp., 168.

549 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

550 Per Lord Ellenborough in Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp., at p. 170.

551 Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 97.

552 Per Shadwell, V. C., in Campbell v. Scott (1842), 11 Sim., 31; Clement v. Maddick (1859), 1 Giff., 98; Reade v. Lacy (1861), 1 J. and H., 524; Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq.,718.

553 (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.

554 (1802), 4 Esp., 168.

555 See also Bohn v. Bogue (1846), 10 Jur., 420.

556 Per Sir W. Page Wood, V. C., in Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718, at p. 723; and see Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

557 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708; Reade v. Lacey (1861), 1 J. and H., 524; Spiers v. Brown (1858), 31 L. T. (O. S.), 18; 6 W. R., 352.

558 (1847), 9 D., 748.

559 Hotten v. Arthur (1863), 1 H. and M., 603.

560 Novello v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177.

561 Ager v. The P. & O. (1884), 26 Ch. D., 637; and see Oxford and Cambridge v. Gill (1899), 43 S. J., 570.

562 Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew, 353.

563 Reade v. Lacey (1861), 1 J. and H., 524; Reade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. (N. S.), 479.

564 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500; Cooper v. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D., 501.

565 See Lord Blackburn in Chatterton v. Cave, 3 A. C., at p. 501; Novello v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R. 15 Eq., 104; Lee v. Simpson (1847), 3 C. B., 871.

566 Maxwell v. Somerton (1874), 22 W. R., 313.

567 Wyatt v. Barnard (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.

568 [1892], 3 Ch., 489.

569 [1892], 3 Ch., 489, per North, J., at p. 499.

570 This summary of “fair use” is taken from Stephen’s Digest “Report of Copyright Commission,” 1878, p. lxx.

571 Sayre v. Moore (1785), 1 East., 361, n.; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215; Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., 270; Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., 385; Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251; Alexander v. Mackenzie (1847), 9 D., 748 at p. 761; Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves., 269; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves., 422; Weekes v. Williamson (1886), 12 Vict., L. R., 483.

572 Lindley, L. J., Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 224.

573 Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215.

574 Per Lord Chancellor Erskine in Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves., at p. 273.

575 Wilson v. Lake (1875), 1 Vict. L. R., Eq., 127.

576 Lindley., L. J., in Hollinrake v. Truswell [1894], 3 Ch., at p. 427.

577 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

578 Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34; Lennie v. Pillans (1843), 5 D., 416; Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ., 385; Lindley, L. J., in Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., at p. 224.

579 Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251, at p. 260.

580 (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

581 (1809), 16 Ves., 269; and see Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 1 J. and H., 312; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Russ. and Mylne, 73; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves., at p. 424.

582 (1839), 2 Beav., 6., at p. 8.

583 And see Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R. (Canada), 321.

584 Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

585 3 K. and J., at p. 715.

586 1 H. and M., 603.

587 (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

588 See Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 444.

589 (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.

590 (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.

591 (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

592 (1839), 2 Beav., 6.

593 See Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R. (Canada), 321.

594 Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34, per Giffard, V. C., at pp. 40, 41.

595 (1870), L. R., 5 Ch., 279.

596 (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

597 (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34.

598 (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697.

599 Per Giffard, L. J., L. R., 5 Ch., at p. 285.

600 (1869), L. R., 5 Ch., 251.

601 Hatherley, L. C., L. R., 5 Ch., at p. 263; and see Longman v. Winchester(1809), 16 Ves., at p. 271; Moffat & Paige v. Gill (1902), C. A., April 25.

602 Per Giffard, L. J., L. R., 5 Ch., at p. 268.

603 Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 1 J. and H., 312; Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R., 5 Ch., 279; Batty v. Taylor (1829), 1 Russ. and Mylne, 73.

604 Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves., 422.

605 (1872), L. R., 8 Ex., 1.

606 Per Kelly, C. B., L. R. 8 Ex., 1, at p. 5.

607 (1872), L. R., 8 Ex., 1.

608 (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.

609 Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94; Murray v. MacFarquhar (1785), M., 8309.

610 Sweet v. Shaw (1839), 3 Jur., 217.

611 Hodges v. Welsh (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. Rep., 266.

612 Sweet v. Shaw (1839), 3 Jur., 217.

613 (1855), 16 C. B., 459.

614 (1838), 3 Myl. and Cr., 711.

615 (1840), 2 Ir. Eq. R., 266.

616 (1826), 2 Russ., 385, at p. 393; see Lord Kinloch in Black v. Murray (1870), 9 M., at p. 356.

617 Whittingham v. Wooler (1817), 2 Swanst, 428; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves., 422.

618 Bell v. Whitehead(1839), 8 L. J. Ch., 141.

619 Per Lord Ellenborough in Roworth. v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94, at p. 97.

620 (1842), 11 Sim., 31.

621 (1874), 31 L. T. (N. S.), 775.

622 (1785), 1 East., 361, n.

623 (1802), 4 Esp., 168; and see Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 1 Cox, Eq. Cas., 283.

624 (1833), 6 Sim., 297.

625 (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288.

626 Wood v. Boosey (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223, 9 B. and S., 175.

627 Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73; Oxford and Cambridge v. Gill (1899), 43, S. J., 570; Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. and J., 708; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R., 1 Eq., 697; Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R., 3 Eq., 718.

628 Leslie v. Young [1894], A. C., Lord Herschell, at p. 341.

629 See p. 97, supra.

630 Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747; Murray v. Elliston (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 657; Reade v. Conquest (1861), 9 C. B. (N. S.), 755; Toole v. Young (1874), L. R., 9 Q. B., 523.

631 Tinsley v.Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747.

632 (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73.

633 Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747.

634 See Stephen’s “Digest,” Art. 9 (“Report Copyright Commission,” 1878, p. lxx.).

635 Gyles v. Wilcox (1740), 2 Atk., 142.

636 Ibid.

637 Tonson v. Walker (1752), 3 Swans., 672, at p. 681; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., Willes, J., at p. 2311; Bell v. Walker (1785), 1 Bro. Ch. C., 450; Murray v. Elliston (1822), 1 Dow and Ry., 299; Butterworth v. Robinson (1801), 5 Ves., 709.

638 (1761), Amb., 402; and see Anonymous Case (1774), Lofft., 775.

639 (1835), 1 Y. and C., Ex., 288.

640 Per Lord Lyndhurst, L. C. B., at p. 301.

641 (1761), Amb., 402.

642 Dickens v. Lee (1844), 8 Jur., 183, at p. 184.

643 Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747, at p. 754; and see the observations of the same judge in Spiers v. Brown (1858), 6 W. R., 352.

644 Munshi v. Mirza (1890), Ind. L. R., 14 Bomb., 586; Macmillan v. Shamsal (1894), Ind. L. R., 19 Bomb., 557.

645 (1720), 2 Meriv., at p. 441.

646 (1769), 4 Burr., Yates J., at p. 2348.

647 (1849), 2 De G. and M., at p. 693.

648 (1814), 3 V. and B., 77.

649 (1852), 1 Drew, 353.

650 Nicols v. Pitman (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.

651 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 15.

652 Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B., 517.

653 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

654 Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B., 517.

655 Ibid.

656 Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567; Allen v. Lyon(1884), 5 Out. Rep., 615; but see Eaton v. Lake (1888), 20 Q. B. D., 378; Strahan v. Graham (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.), 87.

657 Ager v. P. & O. (1884), 26 Ch. D., 637.

658 Coleridge, J., in Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 906.

659 But see Willes, J., at pp. 2311 and 2332, and Aston, J., at p. 2346, in Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303.

660 Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311.

661 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

662 Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., at p. 455; Morris v. Ashbee (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 34; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311; Saunders v. Smith (1838), 3 My. and Cr., 711; Platt v. Button (1815), 19 Ves., 447; Latour v. Bland (1818), 2 Stark, 382; Pitman v. Hine (1884), 1 T. L. R., 39; Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

663 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 5.

664 Reade v. Conquest (1861), 9 C. B. (N. S.), 755; Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747.

665 Reade v. Conquest (1863), 11 C. B. (N. S.), 479. Schlesinger v. Turner (1890), 63 L. T., 764.

666 Toole v. Young (1874), L. R., 9 Q. B., 523.

667 Schlesinger v. Bedford (1890), 63 L. T., 762.

668 Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73.

669 See Clark v. Bishop (1872), 25 L. T., 908.

670 Macklin v. Richardson (1770), Amb., 694.

671 See p. 215.

672 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 232.

673 Macklin v. Richardson (1770), Amb., 694.

674 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 1; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 15, 2.

675 (1820), 1 Jac. and W., 481.

676 (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418, at p. 426.

677 (1822) 5 B. and Ald., 657.

678 (1774), 4 Burr., 2408.

679 (1793), 5 T. R., 245; and see dictum of Cockburn, C. J., in Toole v. Young (1874), L. R., 9 Q. B., at p. 527.

680 See supra, p. 13.

681 Chatterton v. Cave (1875), L. R., 10 C. P., 572; Hatton v. Kean (1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), 268.

682 Reade v. Conquest (1861), 9 C. B. (N. S.), 755; Tinsley v. Lacy (1863), 1 H. and M., 747; Toole v. Young (1874), L. R., 9 Q. B., 523; Warne v. Seebohm (1888), 39 Ch. D., 73.

683 (1847), 3 C. B., 871.

684 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

685 (1872), 25 L. T., 908.

686 (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 102.

687 (1887), 3 T. L. R., 552.

688 [1895], 2 Q. B., 429.

689 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

690 (1874). L. R., 9 Q. B., 523.

691 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

692 [1895], 2 Q. B., 429.

693 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

694 [1895], 2 Q. B., 429.

695 See cases under the Dramatic Licensing Acts; Day v. Simpson (1865), 18 C. B. (N. S.), 680.

696 See Stephen’s “Digest,” Art. 13 (“Report Copyright Commission,” p. lxxii.).

697 See supra, p. 121.

698 The printing and publication of a dramatic piece as a book before public representation does not destroy the performing right as suggested in Stephen’s “Digest,” Art. 14 (“Report Copyright Commission,” p. lxxiii.); Chappell v. Boosey(1882), 21 Ch. D., 232.

699 See Boucicault v. Chatterton(1876), 5 Ch. D. 267.

700 [1893], 2 Q. B., 308; and see also Boucicault v. Chatterton(1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.

701 i. e. the statute of Victoria.

702 i. e. The International Copyright Acts.

703 (1863), 1 H. and M., 597.

704 (1876), 5 Ch. D., 267.

705 Ibid.

706 Wood v. Boosey (1867), L. R., 2 Q. B., 340.

707 Leader v. Purday (1849), 7 C. B., 4; Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N. S.), 182.

708 Russell v. Smith (1848), 12 Q. B., 217; in Hatton v. Kean(1859), 7 C. B. (N. S.), at p. 273, the plaintiff began to argue the question whether a non-dramatic musical composition was within the Act; but counsel for the defendant intimated that he would not rely on that point.

709 Wall v. Taylor (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 102.

710 See A. L. Smith, L. J., in Fuller v. Blackpool Winter Gardens [1895], 2 Q. B., 429.

711 Ibid.

712 Ibid.

713 Ibid.

714 Note that the form in the schedule provides for “name of publisher and place of publication.”

715 i. e. of the copyright and performing right if in the same hands. If in different hands the respective proprietors should be specified.

716 Russell v. Smith (1848), 12 Q. B., 217; Lacy v. Rhys (1864), 33 L. J., Q. B., 157; Clark v. Bishop (1872), 25 L. T., 908.

717 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 11.

718 Ibid.

719 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 12.

720 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

721 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 20.

722 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

723 (1872), 25 L. T., 908.

724 (1864), 33 L. J., Q. B., 157.

725 See Fairlie v. Boosey (1879), 4 A. C., 711.

726 Wood v. Boosey (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223.

727 Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; see Cumberland v. Copeland (1861), 7 H. and N., 118; (1862), 1 H. and C., 194.

728 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, secs. 22, 20, 13.

729 Supra, p. 77.

730 Shepherd v. Conquest (1856), 17 C. B., 427; Eaton v. Lake (1888), 20 Q. B. D., 378.

731 Marsh v. Conquest (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418.

732 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 22.

733 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 2; Power v. Walker (1814), 3 M. and S., 7; Leyland v. Stewart (1876), 4 Ch. D., 419.

734 Marsh v. Conquest (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418.

735 Marsh v. Conquest (1864), 17 C. B. (M. S.), 418; Lacy v. Rhys (1864), 4 B. and S., 873.

736 Ibid.

737 Ex parte Hutchins (1879), L. R., 4 Q. B. D., 483.

738 L. R., 4 Q. B. D., 483.

739 (1834), 1 Ad. and E., 580.

740 See p. 128.

741 See p. 74.

742 Holt v. Woods (1896), 17 New South Wales R., Eq., 36; and see p. 81.

743 (1847), 3 C. B., 871.

744 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

745 See Shelly v. Bethell (1883), 12 Q. B. D., 11.

746 (1883), 11 Q. B. D., at p. 108.

747 (1884), 13 Q. B. D., 843.

748 And see Novello v. Sudlow (1852), 12 C. B., 177.

749 Denman, C. J., in Russell v. Smith (1848), 12 Q. B., 217, at p. 236.

750 (1878), 3 A. C., 483.

751 (1837), 8 C. and P., 68.

752 (1837), 4 Bing., N. C, 17.

753 (1889), 5 T. L. R., 330.

754 Reade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. (N. S.), 479; Schlesinger v. Turner (1890), 63 L. T. (N. S.), 764.

755 Reichardt v. Sapte [1893], 2 Q. B., 308; and see Walter v. Lane [1900], A. C., 539.

756 Supra, p. 104.

757 (1878), 3 A. C., at p. 501.

758 (1831), 5 C. and P., 33.

759 (1849), 8 C. B., 836.

760 (1848), 12 Q. B., 217.

761 (1863), 3 B. and S., 556; see this case and Russell v. Briant, supra, approved by Byrne, J., in Kelly’s Directories v. Gavin & Lloyds [1901], 1 Ch., 374:

762 (1864), 17 C. B. (N. S.), 418.

763 (1886), 2 T. L. R., 685; but see Cole v. Gear(1888), 4 T. L. R., 246.

764 (1831), 5 C. and P., 33.

765 (1893), 9 T. L. R., 548.

766 Lee v. Simpson(1847), 3 C. B., 871, at p. 883.

767 Duck v. Mayen(1892), 8 T. L. R., 339.

768 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 2.

769 Supra, p. 118.

770 Roberts v. Bignell(1887), 3 T. L. R., 552; Eaton v. Lake(1888), 20 Q. B. D., 378.

771 Morton v. Copeland(1855), 16 C. B., 517.

772 Ibid.

773 Powell v. Head(1879), 12 Ch. D., 686.

774 (1835), 1 Y. and C. Ex., 288.

775 (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 102.

776 51 & 52 Vict. c. 17, sec. 3. Wright, J., has held that a knowledge that the music contained the statutory notice reserving performing rights is not of itself sufficient evidence that the proprietor knew the performance to be unauthorised. Moul v. Coronet, Nov. 30, 1901.

777 Not a true “penalty,” but in the nature of liquidated damages, Adams v. Batley (1887), 18 Q. B. D., 625; Saunders v. Will [1892], 2 Q. B., 18; see Fitzbull v. Brooke (1844), 2 D. and L., 477.

778 See p. 86.

779 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 2, provided “double costs of suit.” This was amended by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2, to a “full and reasonable indemnity as to all costs, charges, and expenses.” This probably means nothing more than ordinary party and party costs, Reeve v. Gibson [1891], 1 Q. B., 652; Avery v. Wood [1891], 3 Ch., 115; but it would seem that as the costs are given by statute they are not in the discretion of the Court, and must be awarded to a successful plaintiff, Reeve v. Gibson [1891], 1 Q. B., 652; Hasker v. Wood [1885], 54 L. J. Q. B., 419; Judicature Act, 1890, sec. 5. Sec. 2 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97 is repealed by the Public Authorities Protection Act in so far as that Act applies.

780 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 3.

781 51 & 52 Vict. c. 17, sec. 1; and see p. 86 as to mode of assessing.

782 See p. 86.

783 51 & 52 Vict. c. 17, sec. 2; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 2; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 96, sec. 2.

784 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 15, sec. 3.

785 See infra.

786 See p. 150. This is doubtful.

787 See p. 150.

788 See p. 151.

789 See p. 152.

790 See p. 152.

791 See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186.

792 2 Atk., 93.

793 Amb., 264.

794 15 & 16 Vict. c. 12, sec. 14.

795 Per Best, C. J., in Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., at p. 246.

796 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 1.

797 Stannard v. Lee (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346; 24 L. T. (N. S.), 459.

798 24 L. T. (N. S.), at p. 460.

799 19 W. R., at p. 617.

800 (1871), 24 L. T. (N. S.), 570.

801 (1871), L. R., 6 Ch., 346.

802 Bogue v. Houlston (1852), 5 De G. and Sm., 267; Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369; Comyns v. Hyde (1895), 43 W. R., 266; Hildesheimer v. Dunn (1891), 64 L. T. (N. S.), 452.

803 Page v. Townsend (1832), 5 Sim., 395.

804 Ibid.

805 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1); and see 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.

806 7 Geo. II. c. 38.

807 See p. 36.

808 See p. 169.

809 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 59, sec. 2; Page v. Townsend (1832), 5 Sim., 395.

810 7 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).

811 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

812 Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Brooks v. Cock (1835), 3 Ad. and E., 138.

813 Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41; Harrison v. Hogg (1794), 2 Ves., 322; Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Brooks v. Cock (1835), 3 Ad. and E., 138; Mackmurdo v. Smith (1798), 7 T. R., 518.

814 Blackwell v. Harper (1740), 2 Atk., 93; and see Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp., 94.

815 (1792), 5 T. R., 41.

816 Blackwell v. Harper (1740), 2 Atk., 93; Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.

817 Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing., 234; Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41.

818 Ibid.

819 Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq., 104.

820 Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.

821 Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Fores v. Johnes (1802), 4 Esp., 97.

822 7 Geo. III. c. 38, sec. 7.

823 Donaldson v. Beckett (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129.

824 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M’N. and G., 25; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.

825 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 7 Geo. III. c. 38.

826 Stannard v. Harrison (1871), 24 L. T. (N. S.), 570.

827 See as to books, p. 73.

828 Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41.

829 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

830 Thompson v. Symonds (1792), 5 T. R., 41.

831 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

832 See Assignment of Books, p. 77.

833 Cf. Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567, a decision under the Copyright Act, 1842.

834 Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501; 8 Geo. II. c. 13, sec. 2.

835 See as to books, p. 74.

836 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57. The above summary is the result of a careful comparison of these two Acts. As Sir James Stephen says in his “Digest”: “They are inexpressibly puzzling and very cumbrous.... The sense escapes in a cloud of words.” It is submitted, however, that there are more important distinctions between the two Acts than those noticed in the “Digest,” and the above is an attempt to make them as clear as possible.

837 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

838 Ibid.

839 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

840 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, secs. 8 and 9.

841 Ibid.

842 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

843 17 Geo. III. c. 57; but see Martin v. Wright (1833), 6 Sim., 297, contra.

844 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

845 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, secs. 8 and 9.

846 Ibid.

847 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 8.

848 Gambart v. Sumner (1859), 8 W. R., 27; 5 H. and N., 5; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.

849 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

850 7 Geo. III. c. 38.

851 Graves v. Mercer (1868), 16 W. R., 790.

852 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 7 Geo. III. c. 38.

853 Avery v. Wood [1891], 3 Ch., 115.

854 Hasker v. Wood (1885), 54 L. J., Q. B., 419; Reeve v. Gibson [1891], 1 Q. B., 652.

855 But see Martin v. Wright (1833), 6 Sim., 297.

856 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

857 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

858 West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737; Moore v. Clarke (1842), 9 M. and W., 692.

859 West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.

860 Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410; Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.), 306.

861 Dicks v. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22; Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.), 306.

862 Newton v. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing. at p. 246; De Berenger v. Wheble (1819), 2 Stark., 548.

863 Dicks v. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22; Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.), 306.

864 (1807), 1 Camp., at p. 98.

865 (1833), 6 Sim., 297.

866 No such statement could now be accepted as sound. See p. 112.

867 (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22.

868 15 Ch. D., at p. 34.

869 15 Ch. D., at p. 37.

870 See as to literary copyright, p. 112.

871 Murray v. Heath (1831), 1 B. and Ad., 804.

872 8 Geo. II. c. 13; 17 Geo. III. c. 57.

873 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

874 Cf. Cooper v. Stephens [1895], 1 Ch., 567, which is under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, but on a claim for damages an injunction only would seem to be analogous; Marshall v. Petty (1900), 17 T. L. R., 501.

875 See infra.

876 See p. 162.

877 See p. 162. This is doubtful.

878 See p. 162.

879 See p. 163.

880 See p. 163.

881 See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186.

882 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.

883 Caproni v. Alberti (1892), 40 W. R., 235.

884 Britain v. Hanks, Wright, J., April 15, 1902.

885 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.

886 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (1).

887 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.

888 10 Ir. R. Ch., at p. 516, per Brady, L. Ch. I.

889 Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. R. Ch., 121, 510.

890 See supra, p. 42.

891 54 Geo. III. c. 56.

892 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45.

893 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 1.

894 As to work done by partner of a firm, see Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902.

895 See p. 151.

896 38 Geo. III. c. 71.

897 Viz., 38 Geo. III. c. 71, and 54 Geo. III. c. 56.

898 Britain v. Hanks, April 15, 1902.

899 See p. 46.

900 See p. 174.

901 See p. 152.

902 54 Geo. III. c. 56, secs. 1 and 2.

903 Ibid.

904 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 6; cf. Carnan v. Bowles (1786), 2 Bro. C. C., 8o; Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 311.

905 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 4; cf. 8 Anne c. 19, sec. 1, and Davidson v. Bohn (1848), 6 C. B., 456; Power v. Walker (1814), 3 M. and S., 7; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. Cas., 815.

906 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 4.

907 Ibid.

908 The Sculpture Act gives “double costs,” but 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2, substitutes “a full and reasonable indemnity.” See p. 144, note 4. This probably means costs in the ordinary sense; but the plaintiff is entitled to them as of right and not as a matter of discretion under the Rules of the Supreme Court.

909 54 Geo. III. c. 56, sec. 3.

910 See infra.

911 See p. 168.

912 See p. 170.

913 See p. 171.

914 See p. 174.

915 See p. 174.

916 See chapter on Colonial Copyright, p. 186.

917 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.

918 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 2 Ch., 1.

919 Graves’ case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.

920 See the cases as to new editions of books.

921 Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D., 99.

922 Farina v. Silverlock (1858), 4 K. and J., 650. This case is hardly an authority, as it was decided when published paintings and drawings were unprotected; but it is submitted that even under the Act of 1862 a label of this kind would not be protected.

923 (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510.

924 (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121.

925 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1; see Geissendorfer v. Mendelssohn (1896), 13 T. L. R., 91.

926 See Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627.

927 Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.

928 Ibid.

929 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 4.

930 Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Pollard v. Photo. Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D., 345.

931 Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M’N. and G., at p. 42; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.

932 Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Tuck v. Continental (1887), 3 T. L. R., 826.

933 Ibid.

934 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291; Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), W. N., 145; 48 L. J. Ch., 682.

935 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

936 Dupuy v. Dilkes (1879), W. N., 145; 48 L. J. Ch., 682.

937 Graves’ case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.

938 Ex parte Walker (1869), 17 W. R., 1018; 10 B. and S., 680.

939 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 4.

940 Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; 9 B. and G., 395.

941 Blackburn, J., 9 B. and S., at p. 398. The headnote in ex parte Walker (1869), 10 B. and S., 680, “That the description ‘A Piper and a Pair of Nut-crackers’ was sufficient for the purpose of sec. 6,” is erroneous, the point being left undecided.

942 Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Fores v. Johnes (1802), 4 Esp., 97; see Du Bost v. Beresford (1810), 2 Camp., 511.

943 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.

944 Ibid.

945 7 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.

946 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1.

947 Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Wooderson v. Tuck (1887), 4. T. L. R., 57; Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Kenrick v. Lawrence [1890], 25 Q. B. D., 99.

948 Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; Kenrick v. Lawrence [1890], 25 Q. B. D., 99.

949 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 1; Kenrick v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D., 99; Levi v. Champion (1887), 3 T. L. R., 286.

950 Wooderson v. Tuck (1887), 4 T. L. R., 57.

951 Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Marshall (1895), 11 T. L. R., 522; Ellis v. Ogden(1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.

952 Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895] 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Marshall (1895), 11 T. L. R., 522.

953 Ellis v. Ogden (1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.

954 Melville v. Mirror of Life [1895], 2 Ch., 531; Ellis v. Ogden (1894), 11 T. L. R., 50.

955 Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.

956 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 3.

957 Troitzsch v. Rees (1887), 3 T. L. R., 773; and see Graves’ case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715.

958 See p. 172 as to registration.

959 London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

960 See assignment of literary copyright, p. 78.

961 See as to partial assignment of literary copyright, p. 80.

962 (1880), 13 Ch. D., 872.

963 Tuck v. Canton (1882), 51 L. J., Q. B., 363.

964 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 2.

965 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.

966 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, secs. 6, 8, 9, 11.

967 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6. These penalties are not a civil debt, but in the nature of a fine for a criminal offence; ex parte Graves (1868), L. R., 3 Ch., 642.

968 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.

969 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.

970 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.

971 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.

972 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 8.

973 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.

974 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 9.

975 Ibid.

976 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 10.

977 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 11.

978 (1898), 14 T. L. R.

979 [1900], 1 Ch., 73.

980 Tuck v. Priester (1887), 14 Q. B. D., 629.

981 Ibid.

982 Ibid.

983 Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; Hildesheimer v. Faulkner [1901], 2 Ch., 552.

984 (1868), 9 B. and S., 395.

985 9 B. and S., at p. 402.

986 Ellis v. Marshall (1895),64 L. J., Q. B., 757; Baschet v. London Illustrated [1900], 1 Ch., 73; Nicholls v. Parker (1901), 17 T. L. R., 482; Green v. Irish Independent [1899], 1 I. R., 386.

987 [1901], 2 Ch., 552.

988 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 6.

989 Tuck v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Murray v. Heath (1831), 1 B. and Ad., 804; Mayall v. Higbey (1862), 1 H. and C, 148.

990 Pollard v. Photo. Co. (1888), 4 Ch. D., 345.

991 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 7.

992 This offence does not constitute forgery, because a forgery must be a document, and a picture is not a document; Reg v. Closs (1857), 6 W. R., 109.

993 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 7.

994 16 Jac. 1., c. 16, sec. 3.

995 Lucas v. Williams [1892], 2 Q. B., 113.

996 25 & 26 Vict. c. 68, sec. 2.

997 Ex parte Beal (1868), 3 Q. B., 387.

998 Bolton v. Aldin (1895), 65 L. J., Q. B., 120.

999 But see Hanfstaengl v. Baines [1895], A. C., 20; Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 2 Ch., 1; [1894], 3 Ch., 109.

1000 Graves’ case (1869), L. R., 4 Q. B., 715; cf. the case of the photograph of an engraving, Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.), 306; Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R., 2 C. P., 410.

1001 [1894], 2 Ch. 1.

1002 [1895], A. C., 20.

1003 (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.

1004 (1842), 9 M. & W., 692.

1005 (1897), 45 W. R., 476; see also West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737; London Stereo v. Kelly (1888), 5 T. L. R., 169; Bolton v. London Exhibitions (1898), 14 T. L. R., 550.

1006 Hanfstaengl v. Baines [1895], A. C., 20; ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387; Turner v. Robinson (1860), 10 Ir. Ch., 121, 510.

1007 Ex parte Beal (1868), L. R., 3 Q. B., 387.

1008 Brooks v. Religious Tract Society (1897), 45 W. R., 476; West v. Francis (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 737.

1009 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 3 Ch., 109.

1010 25 & 26 Vict., sec. 3.

1011 25 & 26 Vict., sec. 6.

1012 London Printing and Pub. All. v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

1013 Nicholls v. Parker (1901), 17 T. L. R., 482; and see Guggenheim v. Leng (1896), 12 T. L. R., 491.

1014 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8 (4).

1015 The following colonies have local legislation: India, Ceylon, Canada, the Australian Colonies, New Zealand, Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Hong Kong, Tasmania, Newfoundland.

1016 Australian Colonies, Tasmania, Cape of Good Hope, Natal, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Ceylon. The period of protection in foreign telegrams varies from 24 to 120 hours in the respective colonies.

1017 10 & 11 Vict. c. 95, usually known as the Foreign Reprints Act.

1018 The following are the colonies now under the provisions of the Foreign Reprints Act, 1847. The dates are of the respective Orders in Council. Bermuda, February 13, 1849; Bahamas, May 21, 1849; Newfoundland, July 30, 1849; St. Christopher, November 6, 1849; Antigua, June 19, 1850; St. Lucia, November 13, 1850; British Guiana, October 23, 1851; Mauritius, April 1, 1853; Grenada, December 29, 1853; Nevis, March 10, 1855; Cape of Good Hope, March 10, 1855; Natal, May 16, 1857; Jamaica, April 23, 1859; Trinidad, March 17, 1875; Barbados, August 15, 1890; St. Vincent, August 26, 1881.

1019 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 8.

1020 The following colonies have provided a system of registration: Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia, Natal, Cape of Good Hope.

1021 Printed as a schedule to 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53.

1022 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 152.

1023 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53.

1024 10 & 11 Vict. c. 95.

1025 57 & 58 Vict. (Canada), c. 33.

1026 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17.

1027 Morang v. Publishers (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 393.

1028 63 & 64 Vict. (Canada), c. 25, known as the Fisher Act.

1029 (1876), 1 Tupp. App. Rep., 436.

1030 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17; 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, sec. 152.

1031 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53, sec. 4.

1032 The type need not be set in Canada; Frowde v. Parish (1896), 27 Ont. Rep., 526.

1033 38 & 39 Vict. c. 53, schedule, sec. 15.

1034 Anglo-Canadian v. Suckling (1889), 17 Ont. Rep., 239.

1035 63 & 64 Vict. (Canada), c. 25.

1036 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 17.

1037 See p. 146, supra.

1038 See p. 167, supra.

1039 See p. 161, supra.

1040 Graves v. Gorrie (1900), 32 Ont. Rep., 266.

1041 See p. 194, infra.

1042 Morocco Bound Syndicate v. Harris [1895], 1 Ch., 534.

1043 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19; Boucicault v. Delafield (1863), 1 H. and M., 597.

1044 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 11.

1045 See p. 129.

1046 Berne Convention, Arts. 2, 14; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 2 (3); Order in Council, Nov. 28, 1887, sec. 3.

1047 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace [1894], 3 Ch., 109.

1048 Additional Act of Paris, Art. I. 1; Berne Convention, Art. 13.

1049 Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, ubi supra.

1050 Additional Act of Paris, Art. I. 1.

1051 Berne Convention, Art. 13.

1052 Additional Act of Paris, I. 1.

1053 Berne Convention, Art. 6; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 5 (3).

1054 Additional Act of Paris, II. 1.

1055 i. e. works delineating the steps in a dance or ballet. Berne Convention, Final Protocol (2).

1056 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 6.

1057 See also Berne Convention, Final Protocol (4); Order in Council, Nov. 28, 1887, sec. 3; Additional Act of Paris, Art. II. 2.

1058 Lauri v. Renad [1892], 3 Ch., 402.

1059 Hanfstaengl v. Holloway [1893], 2 Q. B., 1.

1060 [1892], 3 Ch., 402.

1061 Berne Convention, Art. 2; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 2 (3).

1062 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 6; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 4; Order in Council, Nov. 28, 1887; Hanfstaengl v. American Tobacco Co. [1895], 1 Q. B., 347.

1063 Berne Convention, Art. 9.

1064 8 Geo. II. c. 13.

1065 54 Geo. III. c. 56.

1066 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 6.

1067 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 4.

1068 November 28, 1887.

1069 [1891], 2 Ch., 371.

1070 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 6.

1071 Berne Convention, Art. 1.

1072 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, secs. 3, 4, 5.

1073 [1893], 2 Q. B., 1.

1074 [1895], 1 Q. B., 347.

1075 [1891], 2 Ch., 371.

1076 [1895], 1 Q. B., 347.

1077 [1891], 2 Ch., 371.

1078 (1854), 10 Ex., 203; and see Cassell v. Stiff (1856), 2 K. and J., 279.

1079 Scrutton on “Copyright,” 3rd ed., p. 213.

1080 Additional Act of Paris, 1896, Art. II.

1081 Berne Convention, Art. 11.

1082 Ibid.

1083 49 & 50 Vict. sec. 7.

1084 Additional Act of Paris, Art. I. 1; Order in Council, November 28, 1887, sec. 3; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, secs, 2, 3, 4; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 9.

1085 Berne Convention, Art. 2; Order in Council, November 28, 1887, sec. 3; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 2 (3).

1086 See also Revenue Act, 1887.

1087 Pitt Pitts v. George [1896], 2 Ch., 866.

1088 [1900], 1 Ch., 73.

1089 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 9.

1090 See Cassell v. Stiff (1856), 2 K. and J., 279.

1091 Per A. L. Smith, J., in Moul v. Groenings [1891], 2 Q. B., 443.

1092 Per A. L. Smith, J., in Moul v. Groenings [1891], 2 Q. B., 443.

1093 Schauer v. Field [1893], 1 Ch., 35; Hanfstaengl v. Holloway [1893], 2 Q. B., 1.

1094 Schauer v. Field [1893], 1 Ch., 35.

1095 Per A. L. Smith, J., in Moul v. Groenings [1891], 2 Q. B., 443; but see Hanfstaengl v. Holloway [1893], 2 Q. B., 1.

1096 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 5 (1); Additional Act of Paris, Art. I. 3.

1097 Berne Convention, Art. 5; cf. 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 2.

1098 Berne Convention, Art. 5.

1099 Wood v. Chart (1870), 10 Eq., 193; Lauri v. Renad [1892], 3 Ch., Kekewich, J., at p. 414.

1100 Per Sir W. M. James, V. C., in Wood v. Chart.

1101 15 Vict. c. 12, sec. 7; 49 & 50 Vict. c. 33, sec. 5 (4); Additional Act of Paris, Art. I. 4.

1102 Additional Act of Paris, II. 1.

1103 Berne Convention, Art. 9.

1104 15 Vict. c. 12, sec. 6; 38 and 39 Vict. c. 12, sec. 1; Order in Council, Nov. 28, 1887, sec. 6.

1105 Donaldson v. Becket (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129; and see Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303; Tonson v. Collins (1760), 1 W. Black., 301, 321.

1106 See Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324; Reade v. Conquest (1861), 9 C. B. (N. S.), 755; Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815.

1107 Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R., 620.

1108 Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T. (N. S.), 157.

1109 See cases cited in arguments in Tonson v. Collins (1760), 1 W. Black., 301, 321; Donaldson v. Beckett (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., p. 138; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303; Lord St. Leonards in Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., at p. 979.

1110 Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

1111 Kelly v. Hutton (1868), L. R., 3 Ch., 703.

1112 Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

1113 Licensed Victuallers v. Bingham (1888), 38 Ch. D., 139.

1114 Kelly v. Byles (1879), 40 L. T. (N. S.), 623.

1115 Mack v. Petter (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 431.

1116 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

1117 Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

1118 18 Ch. D., at p. 89.

1119 Borthwick v. The Evening Post (1888), 37 Ch. D., 449; Bradbury v. Beeton (1869), 39 L. J. Ch., 57; Clement v. Maddick (1859), 1 Giff., 98.

1120 Kelly v. Hutton (1868), L. R., 3 Ch., 703; Ward v. Beeton (1874), L. R., 19 Eq., 207.

1121 Bradbury v. Dickens (1859), 27 Beav., 53.

1122 (1885), 54 L. J. Ch., 1059.

1123 Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307; Licensed Victuallers v. Bingham (1888), 38 Ch. D.; Correspondent News v. Saunders (1865), 11 Jur. (N. S.), 540.

1124 Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

1125 Schove v. Schmincké (1886), 33 Ch. D., 546.

1126 Talbot v. Judges (1887), 3 T. L. R., 398.

1127 Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

1128 Prowett v. Mortimer (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 414.

1129 Borthwick v. Evening Post (1888), 37 Ch. D., 449; Clement v. Maddick (1859), 1 Giff., 98.

1130 Bradbury v. Beeton (1869), 39 L. J. Ch., 57.

1131 (1803), 8 Ves., 215.

1132 (1824), 3 Sh., 215.

1133 (1855), 2 K. and J., 117.

1134 (1855), 2 K. and J., 123.

1135 (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 414.

1136 (1859), 1 Giff., 98.

1137 (1859), 5 Jur. (N. S.), 947.

1138 (1870), W. N., 268.

1139 (1873), W. N., 93.

1140 (1878), 8 Ch. D., 606.

1141 (1846), 2 Phillips, 154.

1142 (1857), 3 K. and J., 708.

1143 (1869), 39 L. J. Ch., 57.

1144 (1879), 40 L. T. (N. S.), 623.

1145 (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

1146 (1882), 46 L. T. (N. S.), 897.

1147 (1885), 54 L. J. Ch., 1059.

1148 (1888), 37 Ch. D., 449.

1149 Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215.

1150 Seeley v. Fisher (1841), 11 Sim., 581.

1151 Carr v. Hood (1808), 1 Camp., 354 n.

1152 Martin v. Wright (1833), 6 Sim., 297.

1153 Dicks v. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D., 22; Ward v. Beeton (1874), L. R., 19 Eq., 207; Seeley v. Fisher (1841), 11 Sim., 581.

1154 Archbold v. Sweet (1832), 5 C. and P., 219.

1155 (1853), 1 W. R., 345, 11 Hare, 118.

1156 Clark v. Freeman (1848), 11 Beav., 112.

1157 (1832), 5 C. and P., 219.

1158 The Law Times, September 28, 1889.

1159 (1892), 8 T. L. R., 773.

1160 Byron v. Johnston (1816), 2 Meriv., 29.

1161 (1820), 1 Jac. and W., 394.

1162 (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652.

1163 (1874), 43 L. J. Ch., 661.

1164 Lamb v. Evans [1893], 1 Ch., 218.

1165 [1892], 2 Ch., 518.

1166 (1895), 11 T. L. R., 515.

1167 [1895], 2 Q. B., 315.

1168 (1894), 11 T. L. R., 4.

1169 See Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815, per Lord Brougham.

1170 (1843), 2 Hare, 383, at p. 393.

1171 (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.) Ch., 209.

1172 (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652.

1173 [1897], 2 Ch., 48. Exchange Telegraph v. Gregory [1896], 1 Q. B., 147.

1174 Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 209; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M’N. and G., at p. 45.

1175 Bridgman v. Green (1755), 2 Ves. Sen., 627, Wilmot’s cases, 58.

1176 Morison v. Moat (1851), 9 Hare, 241.

1177 Barfield v. Nicholson (1824), 2 Sim. and Stu., 1.

1178 Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), 19 Q. B. D., 629; Pollard v. Photo. Co. (1888), 40 Ch. D., 345.

1179 (1887), 12 A. C., at p. 337.

1180 (1774), 2 Bro. P. C., 129; 4 Burr., 2408; Millar v. Taylor (1769), 4 Burr., 2303; Forrester v. Walker (1741), 4 Burr., 2331; Duke of Queensberry v. Shebbeare (1758), 2 Ed., Cha. Cas., 329; 4 Burr., 2330; Webb v. Rose (1732), Amb. 694; Pope v. Curl (1741), 2 Atk., 342.

1181 (1849), 1 M’N. and G., 25.

1182 Millar v. Taylor, Yates, J., 4 Burr, at p. 2379; and see Tonson v. Walker (1752), 3 Swanst., 672; Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., 652, at p. 691, 3.

1183 2 De G. and Sm., p. 693.

1184 2 De G. and Sm., at p. 697.

1185 (1769), 4 Burr., 2303, at p. 2379.

1186 Jefferys v. Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. C., 815; Caird v. Sime (1887), 12 A. C., at p. 343.

1187 Abernethy v. Hutchinson (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 209. See p. 37, supra.

1188 (1770), Amb., 694.

1189 (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 209.

1190 (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.

1191 (1887), 12 A. C., 326.

1192 See Pope v. Curl (1741), 2 Atk., 342.

1193 12 A. C., at p. 338.

1194 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 1 M’N. and G., 25; and see Mayall v. Higbey (1862), 1 H. and C., 148.

1195 Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435.

1196 Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435; and see cases as to publication of private letters, p. 225.

1197 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., at p. 697.

1198 Southey v. Sherwood (1817), 2 Mer., 435.

1199 Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), 2 De G. and Sm., at p. 688.

1200 (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.). Ch., 209.

1201 (1884), 26 Ch. D., 374.

1202 (1825), 3 L. J. (O. S.), Ch., 209.

1203 See p. 57, supra.

1204 Perceval v. Phipps (1813), 2 V. and B., 19.

1205 Pope v. Curl (1741), 2 Atk., 342; Thompson v. Stanhope (1774), Amb., 737; Granard v. Dunkin (1809), 1 Ball and B., 207; Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swanst., 402; Palin v. Gathercole (1844), 1 Coll., 565.

1206 Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swanst., 402.

1207 Howard v. Gunn (1863), 32 Beav., 462.

1208 Oliver v. Oliver (1861), 11 C. B. (N. S.), 139.

1209 Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swanst., 402.

1210 Lytton v. Devey (1884), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 121.

1211 Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swanst., 402.

1212 Thompson v. Stanhope (1774), Amb., 737; Lytton v. Devey (1884), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 121.

1213 Perceval v. Phipps (1813), 2 V. and B., 19.

1214 Perceval v. Phipps (1813), 2 V. and B., 19; Gee v. Pritchard (1818), 2 Swan., 402; Palin v. Gathercole (1844), 1 Coll., 565; Lytton v. Devey (1884), 52 L. T. (N. S.), 121.

1215 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886; Stevens v. Beaming (1855), 1 K. and J., 168; Reade v. Bentley (1857), 3 K. and J., 271.

1216 Hole v. Bradbury (1879), 12 Ch. D., 886.

1217 Griffith v. Tower Publishing [1897], 1 Ch., 21.

1218 Gibson v. Carruthers (1841), 8 M. and W., 321, at pp. 343, 4.

1219 Gale v. Leckie (1817), 2 Stark, N. P., 107.

1220 Gibson v. Carruthers (1841), 8 M. and W., 321, at pp. 343, 4.

1221 Marshall v. Broadhurst (1831), 1 Tyr., 348, at p. 349.

1222 Clarke v. Price (1819), 2 Wills, C. C., 157; and see Whitwood v. Hardman [1891], 2 Ch., 416.

1223 Gale v. Leckie (1817), 2 Stark, 107.

1224 Morris v. Colman (1812), 18 Ves., 437; Stiff v. Cassell (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 348.

1225 Thombleson v. Black (1837), 1 Jur., 198.

1226 Paton v. Duncan (1828), 3 C. and P., 336.

1227 Planché v. Colburn (1831), 5 C. and P., 58.

1228 Warne v. Routledge (1874), L. R., 18 Eq., 497.

1229 Ibid.

1230 Reade v. Bentley (1857), 3 K. and J., 271.

1231 Morris v. Colman (1812), 18 Ves., 437; Stiff v. Cassell (1856), 2 Jur. (N. S.), 348.

1232 Anstruther v. Bentley (1866), 14 W. R., 630.

1233 Ward v. Beeton (1874), L. R., 19 Eq., 207.

1234 Rooney v. Kelly (1861), 14 Ir. C. L. R., 158, at p. 178.

1235 Barfield v. Nicholson (1824), 2 Sim. and Stu., 2; see Brooke v. Chitty (1831), 2 Coop. Cas., 216; Blackie v. Aikman (1827), 5 S., 719.

1236 See Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves., 215, at p. 222.

1237 Reade v. Bentley (1857), 3 K. and J., 271.

1238 Ibid.

1239 See Constable v. Brewster (1824), 3 S., 215; Kelly v. Hutton (1868), L. R., 3 Ch., 703; Platt v. Walter (1867), 17 L. T. (N. S.), 157.

1240 Johnson v. Egan (1880), 24 Sol. J., 572.

1241 Shackell v. Rosier (1836), 2 Bing., N. C., 634.

1242 Sweet v. Lee (1841), 3 Man. and Gr., 452; see Mavor v. Pyne (1825), 3 Bing., 285; Boydell v. Drummond (1809), 11 East., 142.

1243 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39.

1244 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

1245 Blake v. Nicholson (1814), 3 M. and S., 167.

1246 Bleaden v. Hancock (1829), 4 C. and P., 152.

1247 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12, sec. 2; and Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms Repeal Act, 1869; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24.

1248 Bensley v. Bignold (1822), 5 B. and Ald., 335; Marchant v. Evans (1818), 2 Moore, 14; see Houston v. Mills (1834), 1 M. and Rob., 325.

1249 Gillett v. Mawman (1808), 1 Taunt., 140.

1250 Gillett v. Mawman (1808), 1 Taunt., 140; Mawman v. Gillett (1809), 2 Taunt., 325.

1251 Poplett v. Stockdale (1825), Ry. and M., 337.

1252 Clay v. Yates (1856), 1 H. and N., 73.

1253 See p. 247.

1254 See pp. 250-264.

1255 See p. 266.

1256 Bullinger v. MacKay (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550; Clayton v. Stone (1828), 2 Paine, 382; Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103.

1257 Clayton v. Stone (1828), 2 Paine, 382; Baker v. Selden (1879), 101 U. S. Rep., 99; Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591.

1258 (1828), 2 Paine, 382.

1259 (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103.

1260 (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1261 [1893], 1 Ch., 218 (headings in trades directory).

1262 [1894], A. C., 335 (circular tours in time-tables).

1263 (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1264 [1900], A. C., 539.

1265 (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1266 (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

1267 (1879), 101 U. S. Rep., 99.

1268 (1872), L. R., 14 Eq., 407.

1269 (1883), 21 Ch. D., 369.

1270 (1828), 2 Paine, 382.

1271 (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1272 (1828), 2 Paine, 382.

1273 (1879), 101 U. S. Rep., 99.

1274 Bullinger v. MacKay (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550.

1275 Chils v. Gronland (1890), 41 Fed. Rep., 145.

1276 (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1277 (1828), 2 Paine, 382.

1278 Mott v. Clow (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1279 Egbert v. Greenberg (1900), 100 Fed. Rep., 447.

1280 American Trotting v. Gocher (1895), 70 Fed. Rep., 237.

1281 (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103.

1282 (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 979.

1283 Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.

1284 76 Fed. Rep., at p. 963.

1285 Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573; Henderson v. Tompkins (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 758.

1286 (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 758.

1287 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617; Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Little v. Hall (1855), 18 How., 165; Gould v. Banks (1832), 8 Wend., 562; Heine v. Appleton (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125; Cowen v. Banks (1862), 24 How. Pr., 72.

1288 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617.

1289 Connecticut v. Gould (1888), 34 Fed. Rep., 319; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; West v. Lawyers (1896), 51 U. S. App., 216, 64 Fed. Rep., 360.

1290 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Nash v. Lathrop (1886), 142 Mass., 29.

1291 Banks v. Manchester (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 244; Chase v. Sanborn (1874), 4 Cliff., 306.

1292 Davidson v. Wheelock (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 61; Banks v. M’Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163; Howell v. Miller (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 129.

1293 Ibid.

1294 Ibid.

1295 Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, 768; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep. 764.

1296 Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., at p. 79; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380.

1297 Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, 768.

1298 Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, at p. 780; Shook v. Rankin (1875), 6 Biss., 477.

1299 Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75.

1300 Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf., 87, at p. 100.

1301 Jollie v. Jacques (1850), 1 Blatchf., 618. See Reed v. Carusi (1845), 8 L. R., 411; 72 Fed. Cas., No. 11,642.

1302 (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 849.

1303 (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 861.

1304 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11.

1305 Snow v. Laird (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 813.

1306 Clayton v. Stone (1828), 2 Paine, 382; Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103; Mott v. Clow (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1307 Clayton v. Stone (1828), 2 Paine, 382; Drury v. Ewing (1862), 1 Bond, 541.

1308 (1897), 53 U. S. App., 449.

1309 (1879), 101 U. S. Rep., 99.

1310 101 U. S. Rep., at p. 105.

1311 (1862), 1 Bond, 541.

1312 Coffeen v. Brunton (1849), 4 M’Lean, 516; Scoville v. Toland (1848), 6 West Law, J., 84.

1313 Rev. St., sec. 4952.

1314 Greene v. Bishop (1858), 1 Cliff., 186; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, 768.

1315 Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Bullinger v. MacKay (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550; Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103; Johnson v. Donaldson (1880), 3 Fed. Rep., 22.

1316 (1841), 2 Story, 100.

1317 Isaacs v. Daly (1875), 39 N. Y., 511; Osgood v. Allen (1872), 1 Holmes, 185; Corbett v. Purday (1897), 80 Fed. Rep., 901; Jollie v. Jacques (1850), 1 Blatchf., 618.

1318 Osgood v. Allen (1872), 1 Holmes, 185; see Roberts v. Myers (1860), 13 L. R. (Mass.), 398; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1319 Isaacs v. Daly (1875), 39 N. Y., 511.

1320 Rev. St., secs. 4937-4947.

1321 Wood v. Abbott (1866), 5 Blatchf., 325.

1322 Schreiber v. Thornton (1883), 17 Fed. Rep., 603; Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884), 111 U. S. Rep., 53; Falk v. Gast (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 262; Falk v. Brett (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 678; Bolles v. Outing (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 262; 77 Fed. Rep., 966.

1323 Bolles v. Outing (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 262; 77 Fed. Rep., 966.

1324 Falk v. Gast (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 262; Falk v. Brett (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 678; Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32.

1325 Bolles v. Outing (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 262; 77 Fed. Rep., 966.

1326 Snow v. Laird (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 813.

1327 Binns v. Woodruff (1821), 4 Wash. C. Ct., 48; Ehret v. Pierce (1880), 18 Blatchf. 302.

1328 Mott v. Clow (1897), 53 U. S. App., 461.

1329 Collender v. Griffith (1878), 11 Blatchf., 212.

1330 Ehret v. Pierce (1880), 18 Blatchf., 302.

1331 Courier v. Donaldson (1900), 104 Fed. Rep., 993; Bleistein v. Donaldson (1899), 98 Fed. Rep., 608.

1332 Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 97.

1333 Richardson v. Miller (1877), 3 L. and Eq. Rep. (Am.), 614.

1334 (1888), 35 Fed. Rep., 210.

1335 Coffeen v. Brunton (1849), 4 M’L., 516; Higgins v. Keuffel (1891), 140 U. S. Rep., 428.

1336 Schumacher v. Schwencke (1885), 23 Blatchf., 373; 25 Fed. Rep., 466.

1337 Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss (1880), 2 Fed. Rep., 217.

1338 Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 97, 102.

1339 See Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., at p. 102.

1340 Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., 34.

1341 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 3, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4956.

1342 Ibid.

1343 Act of March 3, 1891, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4959.

1344 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 11.

1345 Jollie v. Jacques (1850), 1 Blatchf., 618; Struve v. Schwedler (1857), 4 Blatchf., 23; Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Chase v. Sanborne (1874), 4 Cliff., 306; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S. Rep., 557; Baker v. Taylor (1848), 2 Blatchf., 82; Carte v. Evans (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 861; Thompson v. Hubbard (1888), 131 U. S. Rep., 123; Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617; Parkinson v. Lascelle (1875), 3 Sawyer, 330; Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1; Ewer v. Coxe (1824), 4 Wash. C. Ct., 487.

1346 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S. Rep., 557; Banks v. Manchester (1888), 128 U. S., 244; West v. Lawyers (1896), 64 Fed. Rep., 360.

1347 Osgood v. Aloe (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 470.

1348 Chicago v. Butler (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 758; Parkinson v. Lascelle (1875), 3 Sawyer, 330; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S., Rep., 557.

1349 Osgood v. Aloe (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 470.

1350 Chase v. Sanborne (1874), 4 Cliff., 306.

1351 Chapman v. Ferry (1883), 18 Fed. Rep., 539.

1352 Jewellers’ v. Jewellers’ (1898), 84 Hun., 12; 155 N. Y., 241; see Scribner v. Allen (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 854; Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47.

1353 Falk v. Gast (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 262.

1354 (1882), 20 Blatchf., 381.

1355 Carte v. Evans (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 681.

1356 (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1357 (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 265.

1358 (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573.

1359 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1360 Bennett v. Carr (1899), 96 Fed. Rep., 213.

1361 Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Chapman v. Ferry (1883), 18 Fed. Rep., 539; Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32.

1362 Osgood v. Aloe (1897), 72 Off. Gaz., 418.

1363 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., at p. 655; Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S. Rep., 557; Blume v. Spear (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 629.

1364 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1365 Ibid.

1366 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 3, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4956.

1367 Littleton v. Oliver (1894), 62 Fed. Rep., 597.

1368 Ibid.

1369 Act of June 18, 1874, sec. 1. This section supersedes the Revised Statutes, sec. 4962.

1370 Ibid.

1371 Act of August 1, 1882.

1372 Act of June 18, 1874, sec. 1.

1373 Jackson v. Walkie (1886), 29 Fed. Rep., 15.

1374 Falk v. Schumacher (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 222.

1375 Hefel v. Whitely (1893), 54 Fed. Rep., 179; and see Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 S. C. R., 321.

1376 Osgood v. Aloe (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 470.

1377 Scribner v. Allen & Co. (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 854; Werckmeister v. Springer (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 808.

1378 The Illustrated American v. New York Press (1892), cited in argument, 1 U. S. Rep., 594.

1379 Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884), 111 U. S. Rep., 53.

1380 Bolles v. Outing (1899), 77 Fed. Rep., 966; 175 U. S. Rep., 262.

1381 Ibid.

1382 Werckmeister v. Springer (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 808.

1383 (1901), 107 Fed. Rep., 708.

1384 (1848), 2 Blatchf., 82.

1385 (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617.

1386 (1888), 35 Fed. Rep., 210.

1387 Snow v. Mast (1895), 65 Fed. Rep., 995; Bolles v. Outing (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 262.

1388 (1869), 4 Cliff. 1, at p. 61.

1389 Ibid.

1390 (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163.

1391 Act of June 18, 1874, sec. 1; Thompson v. Hubbard (1888), 131 U. S. Rep., 123.

1392 Thompson v. Hubbard (1888), 131 U. S. Rep., 123.

1393 Falk v. Gast (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 262; Falk v. Gast (1893), 54 Fed. Rep., 890.

1394 Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.

1395 Dewight v. Appleton (1842), 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 195.

1396 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 11.

1397 Pierce v. Werckmeister (1896), 72 Fed. Rep. 57.

1398 Black v. Allen (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 168.

1399 Pulte v. Derby (1852), 5 M’L., 328; M’Lean, J., at p. 332.

1400 See Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., 34.

1401 (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47.

1402 (1896), 84 Hun., 12.

1403 (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1404 (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1405 (1898), 155 N. Y., 241.

1406 Jewellers’ v. Jewellers’ (1895), 84 Hun., 12.

1407 Osgood v. Aloe (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 470; Gottsberger v. Aldine (1887), 33 Fed. Rep., 381; Baker v. Taylor (1848), 2 Blatchf., 82.

1408 Per Parker, Ch. J., in Jewellers’ v. Jewellers’ (1898), 155 N. Y., at p. 251.

1409 D’Ole v. Kansas (1899), 94 Fed. Rep., 840.

1410 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764; see Baker v. Taylor (1848), 2 Blatchf., 82; Wall v. Gordon (1872), 12 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.), 349.

1411 Press Publishing Co. v. Monroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196; and see Blunt v. Patten (1828), 2 Paine, 397; Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 9 Am. L. Reg., 45.

1412 Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M’L., 301.

1413 Falk v. Gast (1893), 54 Fed. Rep., 890.

1414 French v. Kreling (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 621.

1415 Kiernan v. Manhattan (1876), 50 How. Prac., 194.

1416 Rigney v. Dalton (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 176.

1417 Jewellers’ v. Jewellers’ (1898), 155 N. Y., 241.

1418 Larrowe v. O’Loughlin (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 896.

1419 Jewellers’ v. Jewellers’ (1898), 155 N. Y., 241; Ladd v. Oxnard (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1420 Holmes v. Hurst (1898), 174 U. S. Rep. 82; Holmes v. Donohue (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 179; Mifflin v. Dutton (1901), 107 Fed. Rep., 708.

1421 See Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M. L., 301; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 9 Am. L. Rep., 45; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532.

1422 Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75; Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M’L., 301; Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Tompkins v. Halleck (1882), 133 Mass., 32; Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 4 Phil., 157; Keene v. Kimball (1860), 16 Gray, 549; Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf., 87; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208; Thomas v. Lennox (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 849; Keene v. Clarke (1867), 5 Rob. (N. Y.), 38; Shook v. Rankin (1875), 6 Biss., 477; French v. Maguire (1867), 55 How. (N. Y.) Prac., 471.

1423 Pierce v. Werckmeister (1896), 72 Fed. Rep., 57.

1424 Werckmeister v. Springer (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 808.

1425 Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., 34; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208.

1426 Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div., N. Y., 220.

1427 Ibid.

1428 Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., at p. 39.

1429 Act of 1891, sec. 4, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4958; and see Act, June 18, 1874, sec. 2.

1430 Act of 1891, sec. 4.

1431 Ibid.

1432 Revised Statutes, sec. 4961.

1433 Revised Statutes, sec. 4960.

1434 Martinetti v. Maguire (1867), 1 Abb. U. S., 356; Shook v. Daly (1875), 49 How. Prac., 366; Keene v. Kimball (1860), 16 Gray, 549.

1435 Broder v. Zeno (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 74.

1436 Ibid.

1437 Richardson v. Miller (1877), 3 L. and Eq. Rep. (Am.), 614.

1438 Egbert v. Greenberg (1900), 100 Fed. Rep., 447.

1439 American Trotting Register v. Gocker (1895), 70 Fed. Rep., 237.

1440 Revised Statutes, sec. 4953.

1441 Act of 1891, sec. 2.

1442 (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617.

1443 Pierpont v. Fowle (1846), 2 Wood, and Min., 23, 44; Cowen v. Banks (1862), 24 How. Prac., 72; see Rundell v. Murray (1821), Jac., 315.

1444 Paige v. Banks (1871), 13 Wall, 608; (1871), 7 Blatchf., 152.

1445 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591, 654.

1446 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1.

1447 Koppel v. Downing, 24 Wash. L. R., 342.

1448 Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165; Green v. Bishop (1858), 1 Cliff., 186, 198; Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 97, 100.

1449 Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., at p. 106.

1450 Heine v. Appleton (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125.

1451 Press v. Munroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1452 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1453 Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884), 111 U. S., 53.

1454 Bullinger v. MacKay (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550.

1455 Atwill v. Ferrett (1846), 2 Blatchf., 39; Roberts v. Myers (1860), 13 L. R. Mass., 396.

1456 Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Betts, J., in Atwill v. Ferrett (1846), 2 Blatchf., at p. 46.

1457 Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75.

1458 Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458.

1459 Colliery v. Schools (1899), 94 Fed. Rep., 152; Schumacher v. Schwencke (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 466; Mutual Advertising v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1; Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165; Heine v. Appleton (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125; but see Pierpont v. Fowle (1846), 2 Woodb. and M., 23; Atwill v. Ferrett (1846), 2 Blatchf., 39.

1460 Dielman v. White (1900), 102 Fed. Rep., 892.

1461 Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf., 87.

1462 Press v. Munroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1463 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, at pp. 59, 66.

1464 Banks v. Manchester (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., at p. 253.

1465 Ibid.

1466 Schumacher v. Schwencke (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 466; Mutual Advertising v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.

1467 (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125

1468 Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165.

1469 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617; Black v. Allen (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 618; Carte v. Evans (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 861; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, at p. 59; Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165.

1470 Pulte v. Derby (1852), 5 M’L., 328; Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1.

1471 Act of February 3, 1831, sec. 9; Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., at p. 549; but see contra, Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, at p. 59; Pulte v. Derby (1852), 5 M’L., 328.

1472 Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537; Yuengling v. Schile (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 97; Werckmeister v. Springer (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 808; Stevens v. Gladding (1854), 17 How., 447; Stephens v. Cady (1852), 14 How., 528; Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458; see MacKaye v. Mallory (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 328.

1473 Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Woodb. and Min., 497; see Gould v. Banks, Stephens v. Cady, Little v. Hall, ubi supra.

1474 Gould v. Banks (1832), 8 Wend., 562.

1475 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764; Carte v. Evans (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 861.

1476 Gilmore v. Anderson (1889), 38 Fed. Rep., 846.

1477 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764; Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458.

1478 Werckmeister v. Springer (1894), 63 Fed. Rep., 808.

1479 Publishing Co. v. Munroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196.

1480 Davies v. Vories, 42 S. W., 707.

1481 Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 9 Am. L. Reg., 45.

1482 But see Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., 165.

1483 Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75.

1484 Revised Statutes, sec. 4952.

1485 Stephens v. Cady (1852), 14 How., 528; Stevens v. Gladding (1854), 17 How., 451.

1486 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 1.

1487 Harper v. Shoppell (1886), 23 Blatchf., 431.

1488 Morrison v. Pettibone (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.

1489 Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32; Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499; Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.

1490 Falk v. Howell (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 202.

1491 Kennedy v. McTammany (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 584.

1492 Ladd v. Oxnard (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703.

1493 Schumacher v. Schwencke (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 690.

1494 Maloney v. Foote (1900), 101 Fed. Rep., 264.

1495 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, 81; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 118; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 310; Reed v. Holliday (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 323; Brady v. Daly (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 1007; M’Lean v. Flemming (1877), 96 U. S. Rep., 245; Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499; Morrison v. Pettibone (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330; Millet v. Snowden (1843), 1 West L. J., 240; Parker v. Hulme (1849), 7 West L. J., 426.

1496 Morrison v. Pettibone (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.

1497 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, 81; Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Wood and Min., 497.

1498 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, p. 73.

1499 Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380.

1500 West v. Lawyers (1896), 51 U. S. App., 216.

1501 Bullinger v. MacKay (1879), 15 Blatchf. C. C., 550.

1502 Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, 768.

1503 Ibid.

1504 Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11.

1505 Blunt v. Patten (1828), 2 Paine, 397.

1506 Gilmore v. Anderson (1889), 38 Fed. Rep., 846.

1507 Johnson v. Donaldson (1880), 3 Fed. Rep., 22.

1508 Banks v. M’Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., p. 163; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380.

1509 Banks v. M’Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., at pp. 165, 6.

1510 Gilmore v. Anderson (1889), 38 Fed. Rep., 846.

1511 Thomas v. Lennox (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 849.

1512 See Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183.

1513 Clifford, J., in Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., at p. 80; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 100; Farmer v. Elstner (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 494; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 315; Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, at p. 795; Reed v. Holliday (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 325; Greene v. Bishop (1858), 1 Cliff., 186.

1514 Story, J., in Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, at p. 115.

1515 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 1, 81, 83; Perris v. Hexamer (1878), 99 U. S. Rep., 674; Morrison v. Pettibone (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.

1516 Although this is an element in the question of substantiality, it is no answer to a charge of infringement to say that the infringing composition would have been equally valuable without the borrowed matter. Brady v. Daly (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 1007.

1517 (1897), 87 Fed. Rep., 330.

1518 Howell v. Miller (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 129.

1519 Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296; Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32; Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499.

1520 Farmer v. Culvert (1872), 5 Am. L. T. R., 168; see Sanborn v. Dakin (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 266.

1521 Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 611; Brady v. Daly (1897), 83 Fed. Rep., 1007.

1522 Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32; Falk v. Howell (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 202.

1523 Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; List v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.

1524 Ibid.

1525 List v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.

1526 (1875), 13 Blatchf., at p. 166.

1527 Story, J., in Emerson v. Davis (1845), 3 Story, at p. 793.

1528 Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573; Goldmark v. Kreling (1888), 35 Fed. Rep., 661.

1529 Broder v. Zeno (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 74; Blume v. Spear (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 629; Jollie v. Jacques (1850), 1 Blatchf., 618.

1530 West v. Lawyers (1894), 64 Fed. Rep., 361.

1531 List Publishing Co. v. Keller (1887), 30 Fed. Rep., 772.

1532 Sanborn v. Dakin (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 266; Farmer v. Culvert (1872), 5 Am. L. T. R., 168.

1533 Chils v. Gronland (1890), 41 Fed. Rep., 145; Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Wood. and Min., 497.

1534 Banks v. M’Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; Howell v. Miller (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 129.

1535 Banks v. M’Divitt (1875), 13 Blatchf., 163.

1536 Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380.

1537 Burnell v. Chown (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 993.

1538 Munro v. Smith (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 266.

1539 Ehret v. Pierce (1880), 18 Blatchf., 302; Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.

1540 Mutual Advertising Co. v. Refo (1896), 76 Fed. Rep., 961.

1541 Serrana v. Jefferson (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 347.

1542 (1879), 15 Blatchf., 550.

1543 Ladd v. Oxnard (1896), 75 Fed. Rep., 703; Brightley v. Littleton (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 103; Mead v. West (1896), 80 Fed. Rep., 380; Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.

1544 Drury v. Ewing (1862), 1 Bond., 549.

1545 Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 306; Webb v. Powers (1847), 2 Wood. and Min., 497, 512.

1546 Falk v. Donaldson (1893), 57 Fed. Rep., 32.

1547 Falk v. Howell (1888), 37 Fed. Rep., 202.

1548 Gilmore v. Anderson (1889), 38 Fed. Rep., 846.

1549 (1839), 1 Story, 11; see Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 306; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 100, 116.

1550 Gifford, J., in Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Giff., 82; see Story, J., in Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, p. 106; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., at p. 309.

1551 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., p. 78; Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 309; Folsom v. Marsh (1841), 2 Story, 106; Gray v. Russell (1839), 1 Story, 11; Stowe v. Thomas (1853), 2 Wall. Jr., p. 547; Keene v. Wheatley (1860), 9 Am. L. R., 45.

1552 (1847), 4 M’L., 306.

1553 Story v. Holcombe (1847), 4 M’L., 308, 309.

1554 (1869), 4 Cliff., 78.

1555 Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., pp. 78, 79.

1556 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 1.

1557 Act of July 18, 1870; Revised Statutes, 1874, sec. 4952.

1558 Stowe v. Thomas (1853), 2 Wall. Jr., 547.

1559 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 1.

1560 Act of Congress, Aug. 18, 1856.

1561 (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256, at p. 264.

1562 (1868), 6 Blatchf., at p. 264.

1563 Brady v. Daly (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., 148; Daly v. Webster (1892), 1 U. S. App., 573.

1564 See Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183.

1565 Act of 1891, sec. 7, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4964.

1566 Act of March 2, 1895, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4965, and Act of 1891, sec. 8.

1567 It has been suggested that this division of penalties applies only to “paintings, statues, and statuary.” Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., 8 Sup. Ct., 618.

1568 Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632.

1569 Bennett v. Boston (1900), 101 Fed., Rep., 445.

1570 Act of Jan. 6, 1897, amending Revised Statutes, sec. 4966.

1571 Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.

1572 Stevens v. Gladding (1854), 17 How., 447; Falk v. Gast (1893), 54 Fed. Rep., 890; Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.

1573 West v. Lawyers (1894), 64 Fed. Rep., 360; Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488; Farmer v. Elstner (1888), 33 Fed. Rep., 494.

1574 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 85; Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. (1877), 97 U. S. Rep., 126, 139.

1575 Callaghan v. Myers (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 617.

1576 Ibid.

1577 Gilmore v. Anderson (1890), 42 Fed. Rep., 267.

1578 Daly v. Brady (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 285; Atwill v. Ferrett (1846), 2 Blatchf., 39; Revised Statutes, sec. 860.

1579 Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632; Johnson v. Donaldson (1880), 3 Fed. Rep., 22; Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.

1580 Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., at p. 614; Springer v. Falk (1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.

1581 Falk v. Heffron (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 299.

1582 Ibid.

1583 Revised Statutes, sec. 4965.

1584 Bolles v. Outing (1899), 77 Fed. Rep., 966; Reed v. Carusi (1845), 72 Fed. Cas., No. 11, 642; Backus v. Gould (1849), 7 How., 798; Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 124 U. S. Rep., 612; Falk v. Curtis (1901), 107 Fed. Rep., 126; (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 989; Child v. New York Times (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 527.

1585 Falk v. Curtis (1900), 100 Fed. Rep., 77.

1586 Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 124 U. S. Rep., 612.

1587 Chapman v. Ferry (1882), 12 Fed. Rep., 693.

1588 Previous demand is not a condition precedent; Hegemen v. Springer (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 374.

1589 Rogers v. Jewett (1858), 12 L. R., 339.

1590 Sarony v. Ehrich (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 79.

1591 See Williams v. Smythe (1901), 110 Fed. Rep., 961.

1592 Harper v. Holman (1897), 84 Fed. Rep., 224; Colliery v. Schools (1899), 24 Fed. Rep., 152; Little v. Gould (1851), 2 Blatchf., at p. 184.

1593 Hubbard v. Thompson (1882), 14 Fed. Rep., 689; Trow v. Boyd (1899), 97 Fed. Rep., 586.

1594 Reed v. Holliday (1884), 19 Fed. Rep., 325; Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1595 Daly v. Palmer (1868), 6 Blatchf., 256.

1596 Stuart v. Smith (1895), 68 Fed. Rep., 189.

1597 Falk v. Curtis (1900), 98 Fed. Rep., 989.

1598 Belford v. Scribner (1892), 144 U. S. Rep., 488.

1599 Fishel v. Lueckel (1892), 53 Fed. Rep., 499.

1600 Trow v. Boyd (1899), 97 Fed. Rep., 586.

1601 Taylor v. Gilman (1885), 24 Fed. Rep., 632.

1602 McDonald v. Hearst (1899), 95 Fed. Rep., 656.

1603 Thornton v. Schreiber (1887), 7 How., at p. 614; Springer v. Falk(1894), 20 U. S. App., 296.

1604 Revised Statutes, sec. 4968.

1605 Wheeler v. Cobbey (1895), 70 Fed. Rep., 487; Daly v. Brady (1895), 69 Fed. Rep., 285; see Brady v. Daly (1899), 175 U. S. Rep., at p. 158.

1606 Black v. Allen (1893), 56 Fed. Rep., 764.

1607 Hill v. Epley (1858), 31 Perm. St., 331; Lawrence v. Dana (1869), 4 Cliff., 83; Heine v. Appleton (1853), 4 Blatchf., 125; Menendez v. Holt (1888), 128 U. S., 514; Keene v. Clarke (1867), 5 Robertson, N. Y., 38, 66, 67.

1608 Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 2 Biss., 34.

1609 Falk v. Schumacher (1891), 48 Fed. Rep., 232.

1610 Ibid.

1611 Scribner v. Allen (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 854.

1612 Revised Statutes, sec. 4969; sec. 914; see Johnston v. Klopsch (1898), 88 Fed. Rep., 692.

1613 Revised Statutes, sec. 4963, amended Act, March 3, 1897.

1614 Ross v. Raphael Tuck (1898), 91 Fed. Rep., 128.

1615 Rosenbach v. Dreyfus (1880), 2 Fed. Rep., 217.

1616 Taft v. Stephens (1889), 39 Fed. Rep., 781.

1617 Rigney v. Raphael Tuck (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 173.

1618 Rigney v. Dalton (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 176.

1619 Ibid.

1620 Hoertel v. Raphael Tuck (1899), 94 Fed. Rep., 844.

1621 Rigney v. Dalton (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 176.

1622 Revised Statutes, sec. 4956, amended March 3, 1891, 26 S. L., 1107.

1623 26 S. L., 604.

1624 26 S. L., 604.

1625 Ibid.

1626 Ibid.

1627 Ibid.

1628 Revised Statute, sec. 4956, amended March 3, 1891, 26 S. L., 694.

1629 Ibid.

1630 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Banks v. Manchester (1888), 128 U. S. Rep., 244; Jewellers v. Jewellers’ (1898), 155 N. Y., 241; Holmes v. Hurst (1898), 174 U. S. Rep., 82; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; West v. Lawyers (1896), 64 Fed. Rep., 360; Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537; Merrell v. Tice (1881), 104 U. S. Rep., 557; Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Boucicault v. Fox (1862), 5 Blatchf., 87; Boucicault v. Wood (1867), 7 Am. L. R., 550; 2 Bis., 34; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; Carte v. Ford (1883), 15 Fed. Rep., 439; Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Ewer v. Coxe (1824), 4 Wash. C. C., 487.

1631 Boucicault v. Hart (1875), 13 Blatchf., 47; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; Carte v. Ford (1883), 15 Fed. Rep., 439; Carte v. Duff (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 183.

1632 M’Lean v. Fleming (1877), 96 U. S. Rep., 245; Estes v. Williams (1884), 21 Fed. Rep., 189; Social Register v. Howard (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 270.

1633 Harper v. Holman (1897), 84 Fed. Rep., 224.

1634 Social Register v. Howard (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 270.

1635 Estes v. Williams (1884), 21 Fed. Rep., 189; Estes v. Leslie (1886), 27 Fed. Rep., 22.

1636 Aronson v. Fleckenstein (1886), 28 Fed. Rep., 75.

1637 Merriam v. Holloway (1890), 43 Fed. Rep., 450; Merriam v. Famous Shoe (1891), 47 Fed. Rep., 411.

1638 Ibid.

1639 Clemens v. Belford (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 728.

1640 Clemens v. Belford (1883), 14 Fed. Rep., 728; Drummond v. Altemus (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 338.

1641 Drummond v. Altemus (1894), 60 Fed. Rep., 338.

1642 Kipling v. Fenno (1900), 106 Fed. Rep., 692.

1643 Doan v. American Book Co. (1901), 105 Fed. Rep., 772.

1644 Merriam v. Famous Shoe (1891), 47 Fed. Rep., 411; Merriam v. Texas Siftings (1892), 49 Fed. Rep., 944.

1645 Dodd v. Smith (1891), 144 Pa., 340.

1646 Black v. Ehrich (1891), 44 Fed. Rep., 793.

1647 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Little v. Hall (1855), 18 How., 165; Bartlett v. Crittenden (1847), 4 M’L., 301; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532.

1648 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Jones v. Thoms (1843), 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 408; French v. Maguire (1878), 55 How. (N. Y.) Pr., 471; Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How., 179; Rees v. Peltzer (1874), 75 Ill., 475; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208; Carte v. Bailey (1874), 64 Maine, 458.

1649 Wheaton v. Peters (1834), 8 Pet., 591; Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532; Goldmark v. Kreling (1885), 25 Fed. Rep., 349; Daly v. Walrath (1899), 40 App. Div. N. Y., 220; 28 Chic. Leg. News, 49.

1650 See p. 262, supra.

1651 Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537.

1652 See p. 263, supra.

1653 Oertel v. Wood (1870), 40 How. Pr., 10; Oertel v. Jacoby (1872), 44 How. Pr., 179.

1654 Tompkins v. Halleck (1882), 133 Mass., 32; overruling Keene v. Kimball (1860), 16 Gray, 549; see French v. Maguire (1878), 55 How. (N. Y.) Pr., 471; Crowe v. Aiken (1870), 2 Biss., 208.

1655 Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532.

1656 Act of March 3, 1891, sec. 9, amending Revised Statutes, 4967.

1657 Press v. Munroe (1896), 73 Fed. Rep., 196.

1658 Palmer v. De Witt (1872), 47 N. Y., 532.

1659 Ibid.

1660 Parton v. Prang (1872), 3 Cliff., 537.

1661 See pp. 152-4.

1662 Repealed by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 61).

1663 Repealed by Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1867.

1664 Repealed by Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1887.

1665 Ibid.

1666 Repealed by Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1867.

1667 Ibid.

1668 Repealed by The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893.

1669 See p. 61.

1670 41 Geo. III., c. 107, extends the privileges of this Act to Dublin.

1671 See p. 61.

1672 See p. 61.

1673 This section is repealed by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, and the provisions of that Act substituted therefor in so far as they may be held to apply.

1674 A “full and reasonable indemnity” is substituted by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2. These words in the above section printed in italics were subsequently repealed by Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1861.

1675 See p. 161.

1676 See p. 162.

1677 A “full and reasonable indemnity” is substituted by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2.

1678 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1873 (1).

1679 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1890 (2).

1680 See p. 123.

1681 See p. 139.

1682 See p. 135.

1683 See p. 126.

1684 See p. 142.

1685 A “full and reasonable indemnity” substituted by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2. See p. 144.

1686 See p. 57.

1687 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1890.

1688 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1888 (2).

1689 5 & 6 Vict. c. 97, sec. 2, substitutes “a full and reasonable indemnity.”

1690 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act 1890 (2). See p. 13.

1691 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1874 (2).

1692 See p. 10.

1693 See pp. 36, 148.

1694 See p. 12.

1695 See p. 123.

1696 See p. 74.

1697 See p. 38.

1698 See pp. 42, 62.

1699 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1890 (2).

1700 See p. 119.

1701 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1890 (2).

1702 See p. 55.

1703 See p. 56.

1704 See pp. 47, 49-53.

1705 See p. 53.

1706 See p. 46.

1707 See p. 78.

1708 See p. 54.

1709 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1893 (1).

1710 Ibid.

1711 Ibid.

1712 Ibid.

1713 See p. 85.

1714 See pp. 75, 77, 118.

1715 See p. 92.

1716 See p. 91.

1717 Ibid.

1718 See p. 66.

1719 See p. 67.

1720 See p. 68.

1721 Ibid.

1722 There may be joint employers. See p. 71.

1723 See p. 71.

1724 See p. 72.

1725 See pp. 49-53.

1726 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1890 (2).

1727 See p. 131.

1728 See p. 67.

1729 See p. 131.

1730 See p. 135.

1731 See p. 89.

1732 See p. 47.

1733 See p. 133.

1734 The whole of section 26 is repealed by the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, in so far as that Act applies. The result is probably that the first part of the section, printed in italics, is entirely repealed. The second part of the section is probably not repealed except in respect of actions against a person or body for acts done in performance of a public duty.

1735 See p. 91.

1736 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1874.

1737 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1891.

1738 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1874 (2).

1739 Repealed International Copyright Act, 1886, sec. 12.

1740 Ibid.

1741 Ibid.

1742 See pp. 41, 128, 151, 162, 168.

1743 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1874 (2).

1744 Usually known as The Foreign Reprints Act. See p. 187.

1745 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1891.

1746 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1875.

1747 Repealed; Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883.

1748 Ibid.

1749 Works produced in the following countries received protection under this Act. The dates appended are the dates of the respective Orders in Council: France, Order in Council, dispensed with; Prussia, Oct. 19, 1855; Belgium, Feb. 8, 1855; Italy, Sept. 9, 1865; Sardinia, Feb. 4, 1861; Spain, Sept. 24, 1857; Nov. 20, 1880.

1750 Secs. I.-V. repealed; Int. Copyright Act, 1886, sec. 12.

1751 Sec. VIII. is repealed: Int. Cop. Act, 1886, sec. 12.

1752 See p. 170.

1753 See p. 167.

1754 See p. 181.

1755 See p. 174.

1756 See p. 175.

1757 See p. 171.

1758 See p. 179.

1759 Ibid.

1760 See p. 180.

1761 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1893 (1).

1762 Ibid.

1763 See p. 178.

1764 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1893 (2).

1765 See p. 188.

1766 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1893 (2).

1767 See p. 91.

1768 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1898.

1769 See p. 131.

1770 Repealed Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1888.

1771 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1898.

1772 See p. 197.

1773 See pp. 40, 187, 191; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 12, sec. 19.

1774 See p. 186.

1775 Repealed Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1898.

1776 See p. 144.

1777 See p. 201.

1778 Those portions of the Convention printed in italics have been altered by the Additional Act of Paris, 1896. Norway, although a signatory of the Convention, has not acceded to the Additional Act.

1779 See paragraph 2 of Final Protocol.

1780 See paragraph 4 of Final Protocol.

1781 See paragraph 5 of Final Protocol.

1782 The following countries subsequently acceded to the Berne Convention and joined the Copyright Union. By various Orders in Council of the respective dates given hereunder the provisions of the International Copyright Acts and of the above Order in Council were extended to the acceding countries, viz.:
Luxembourg, August 10, 1888; Monaco, October 15, 1889; Montenegro, May 11, 1893; Norway, August 1, 1896; Japan, August 8, 1899.

Montenegro subsequently seceded August 9, 1899.

1783 All the Orders in Council under the International Copyright Acts, 1844 and 1852.

1784 The following countries subsequently acceded to the Additional Act of Paris. By Orders in Council of the respective dates given hereunder the provisions of the above Order in Council are extended to the acceding countries, viz.:

Haiti, May 19, 1898; Japan, August 8, 1899.
Montenegro subsequently seceded August 9, 1899.

1785 See p. 60.

1786 Not to include labels. Act of Congress, June 18, 1874, sec. 3.

1787 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 1.

1788 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 2.

1789 Omission to deposit copies, description, or photographs within the prescribed time could have been rectified by deposit before March 1, 1893: Act of Congress, March 3, 1893.

1790 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 3.

1791 Amended Act of Congress, June 18, 1874, sec. 2.

1792 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 4.

1793 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 5.

1794 Act of Congress, June 18, 1874, substitutes “upon some visible portion thereof, or of the substance upon which the same shall be mounted.” Act of Congress, August 1, 1882, provides that in the case of designs for decorative articles the notice may be put on the back or bottom, &c.

1795 Act of Congress, June 18, 1874, provides an alternative form of notice.

1796 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 6. Further amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1897.

1797 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 7.

1798 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 8. Further amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 2, 1895.

1799 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, January 6, 1897.

1800 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 9.

1801 Repealed by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 10.

1802 Superseded by Act of Congress, March 3, 1891, sec. 4.

1803 Omission to deposit copies, description, or photographs within the prescribed time could have been rectified by deposit before March 1, 1893: Act of Congress, March 3, 1893.

1804 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 3, 1897.

1805 Amended section substituted by Act of Congress, March 2, 1895.

Trancriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling as in the original.

Punctuation normalised throughout.