Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
. .441PAPPON11. O* b*flJ vcJVr tflC H ?UWIWI uUgCr. One caitse onSy, " ?antos v;;Rawkins," was appointed for the dat-. It occupiec the Court eiltlhaLf-past 12 o'clock, but was eatirer dettituteof general interegt. WESITMINSTEr Juxuc 17. (Sitting: before the 'Pisne Jtdges.) 'CLE,ItNTI AiAD OTHERS V. WALKER.- Dfr.JustIceBAYLEY delivered the judgment of the Court-in this cast, whchi was,an action against the defendint forpirating thepub- lication of 'a work entitled a Treat1w on .lMwsical lnstrzumntm . Tbefacts of the case we.-e-A entlieman named-Clanrickard was ,the anthor; I :ho,had entered into a- bargain, with a, person named Pliser, at Paris, in 1814,-that he (Plaiser) should have the liberty of printing anti publisbing.' PLiiser. in pursuance of. this libertv, entered into a'subsequent agreernent with theplaintitClenenii, giving hifn for301. the exclusive -privilege-of printing and publish .ng mnEngland. In.1815, the defendants sbn, havingbought a copy of the work, aspublished in Paris by Pliamer5 in 1817. the plaintiff pablished in 3his kingdom a jac-sinmnl of the sa-me ivork- In 1818 Olannclcard executed a reguiar assignment of the work to the plain- tiff,:and the d(fendant, in 1822, having sold a copy of the -work printed bylmii,-this actiofi was brought thereot. Thofitst ques- tion -wav,: wh'ther the phintifft was entitled to maintain this 4ction ; secondly, whether the wnrk, having -been first published ,abroaa4 was entitled to the eicelsive privflega of copyrighti under th,e diti rent actt of Plarlieaent-for the protecton 'of literary p)ro- perty. In the first lace, tlhe-Court thought the action was not strictly maintainable by t,lernenti;-bechuse'there Was nocontract in; *ritilig wvtith Clan,ickard and Plaiser, so as to empower hint to assigni to'the plainltiff in o,rderto make it on the part oftthe plaintiff a privileged publication; as,alth6ugh Clanrickard iad. retgularly assigned the permieriozi to Platser; he night still interfeie'so as to stop the publi- cation by the p'resent plaintitE - The next question w.Lqs, whether the beveral statites giving exclusiv'e copyright to the author of b-coks publtshed tn tlz kingdo?t coavcyed-the same protection and ex- Clusrve privilege to books printed abroad. The C-ourt was of opinion tha tlie sereraljActs of Pailiament contemplated the protection from iracy of works publishetl in this kingdom only, and this because the public would b benefitted by the ~ eiplo.yment of British capital, British workmen, and British muaterial. On these grounds the Court decided that the plaintishould be nonsuitoa.-Nonsuit en. t,ered accordinelr. '___' CoTyR~r i53t Ut9( I LnltAtt, JtrzI 17.