(A) CUSTOM.

(a) To take Stone.

Suit by a copyholder against a tenant of lands within the manor to restrain taking stone from lands in his occupation. The defendant by his answer alleged that it was and had been a common practice in the manor to remove the stone which lay immediately under the surface for the benefit of cultivation. At the hearing, the Court decreed a perpetual injunction, the defendant declining to try his right to take the stone at law. Cuddon v. Morley, 7 Hare, 202.

(b) To devise.

No presumption will be made against the right of a party to devise his copyhold estate. And, therefore, where it was stated, in a special case, that before the statute 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 26. there was, in a particular manor, no instance of" a devise, by a customary tenant, of any messuages, &c. in the manor, but that it had frequently happened that when a party was desirous of disposing of his customary messuages after his death, he surrendered the same to a third person, declaring the trusts of the equitable estate by a separate instrument :-Held, first, that this did not amount to an express statement of the want of a custom to devise or surrender to the use of a will, and the Court would not conclude against the existence of such a custom; secondly, that it did not amount to a statement of custom to devise in any particular manner (at all events, as applicable to the legal estate); and, therefore, that a devise of customary messuages, &c., made before the passing of the statute in question, was valid. Doe d. Dand v. Thomson, 15 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Q.B. 88; 7 Q.B. Rep. 897.

(c) Heriot Custom.

A heriot may be due by custom on the death of a tenant of free lands of a manor held in fee simple.

In order to prove such a custom, evidence of presentments and payment of heriots in respect of other lands in the same manor was admitted. Damerell v. Protheroe, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Q.B. 170; 10 Q.B. Rep. 20.

To support the proof of a custom for the lord of a manor to take only one heriot from a tenant whatever the number of his holdings might be, a paper purporting to be a copy of an old decree of the Court of Chancery in a suit between a copyholder and the lord, produced by a witness who succeeded his brother as lord of the manor, and who stated that he had found it amongst his brother's papers, is admissible in evidence as against a subsequent lord, evidence having been given of an ineffectual search for the original. Price v. Woodhouse, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Exch. 271; 3 Exch. Rep. 616.

(B) SURRENDER AND ADMITTANCE.
(a) Trustees.

Copyholds were surrendered to the use of a will, whereby they were devised to trustees for a term of years, with a proviso for cesser, and subject thereto to A for life, remainder to his first and other sons in tail. On the death of the testator, the trustees of the term were admitted and a fine paid. The trusts

of the term became satisfied, and A had a son who became tenant in tail in remainder.

By a private act of parliament certain new trustees, therein named, were enabled to sell the copyholds, with power to them" by any surrender by them, according to the custom of the manor, and in the same manner as if such trustees were the copyhold tenants of the same, to surrender the copyholds so to be sold to the use of the purchaser in fee, to be holden at the will of the lord, according to the custom," &c. freed and discharged from the limitations of the will.

The trustees themselves took no estate under the act. By an express clause the rights of all persons except those interested under the will were saved. The new trustees sold the copyholds, and tendered a formal surrender to the use of the purchaser in fee, which the steward of the manor refused to accept, on the ground that the trustees required to be first admitted tenants of the manor, and that according to the custom of the manor the estate tail could only be barred by a surrender, on which a separate fine was payable to the lord.

Held, that the lord was bound to accept the surrender by the trustees, which operated to bar the tenant for life and remainder-man, who had been admitted by virtue of the admission of the trustees of the term. Regina v. the Manor of Weedon Beck, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 289.

(b) Company.

By an act of parliament, under which an incorporated company had power to purchase land for the formation of a canal, persons having property upon the line of the canal were to convey any right, title, or interest in such property to the company, by a conveyance in the form pointed out by the act which was adapted only to the case of freeholds. A copyholder in fee conveyed, under the act, his interest in certain lands to the company. Upon the death of the copyholder, without having surrendered, the lord of the manor refused to admit his heir or the canal company:-Held, that the customary heir of the copyholder ought to be admitted by the lord to the copyhold premises, and that such heir, when admitted, was to hold as trustee for the company, who were to pay the fines and fees upon the admission. The Grand Junction Canal Co. v. Dimes, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 148; 15 Sim. 402: affirmed 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 206.

(c) Heir of Copyholder.

Where copyhold lands descendible from ancestor to heir, according to the custom, are held for the joint lives of the lord and the tenant for the time being, and the copyholder is admitted to hold to him (not saying "and his heirs") for the joint lives of himself and the lord, according to the custom, &c.,-Held, that the heir of the copyholder cannot maintain ejectment before admittance. Doe d. Dand v. Thompson, 18 Law J. Rep. (x.s.) Q.B. 326.

(d) Feme Covert.

A woman seised of copyholds executed a surrender jointly with her husband to such uses as her husband should appoint, and in default of appoint

ment, to him in fee, but no admittance was entered under the surrender. The husband then executed a conveyance of the copyholds to a purchaser, but still no admittance was entered. The plaintiff, who claimed under the purchaser, filed a bill to restrain an action of ejectment by the copyhold heir of the wife, and to compel a surrender to complete his title:-Held, that the husband of the copyholder had no power to make perfect that title which he, as a volunteer, and without consideration, took imperfectly, and no person claiming under him I could ask that his defective title should be made complete; and the bill was dismissed, with costs. Sowerby v. Gutteridge, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 9.

(e) Fines, Fees, and Stamps.

Copyhold land was devised to A for life, remainder to five persons, as tenants in common; A was admitted. After his death, the five, having contracted to sell to B, severally surrendered to the use of B in fee, which surrender was accepted by the lord:-Held, that B, on claiming admittance, must pay five fees, and that the admittance would require five stamps. Regina v. Eton College, 8 Q.B. Rep. 526.

Testator devised certain copyhold tenements to his son W M for life, remainder to the children of W M as tenants in common in tail, remainder as to one moiety to his daughter P, for life, remainder to her children as tenants in common in tail, and as to the other moiety to his daughter S, for life, remainder to her children as tenants in common in tail. W M was admitted, and died in 1844, without issue, P and S having previously died, leaving issue. After the death of W M, the only child of P and the four children of S surrendered to T B, by the description of "all that piece or parcel of land late in the occupation of W M" :-Held, that, on the admittance of T B, five different fines, and five sets of fees, and five stamp duties were payable. Regina v. the Manor of Everdon, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 18.

Debt by a steward of a manor for fees. An act of parliament for inclosing the parish of S directed the Commissioners to allot the uninclosed lands in S amongst the owners thereof in proportion to their rights and interests in the same; that the allotted lands should be held by the allottees under the same tenures, rents, and customs, and services as the lands in respect of which they were allotted would have been in case the act had not been passed; that where the allotted lands were held under different titles or for different estates, the Commissioners should distinguish the lands held for each of such estates and titles, and set out the allotments accordingly. The Commissioners allotted to A, who was the owner of sixteen separate copyhold tenements in the uninclosed lands in S, five pieces of land, consisting in the whole of forty-nine acres, but did not distinguish in respect of which of the sixteen tenements they had so allotted them. A afterwards surrendered to the defendant the fifth allotment made to him, consisting of five acres, and the defendant was admitted to the same. Before the passing of the Inclosure Act, when any person was admitted in severalty to a part of a copyhold tenement held of the manor, the steward

was entitled upon admission to the same amount of fees as if such person had been admitted to the whole of such tenement:-Held, in an action by the plaintiff, as steward of the manor, to recover sixteen fees in respect of the defendant's admission to the fifth allotment, that that allotment must be considered to consist of a part of each of the sixteen tenements in the uninclosed lands, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to sixteen fees in respect thereof. Evans v. Upsher, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Exch. 185; 16 Mee. & W. 675.

(f) Evidence.

In order to prove the admittance to a copyhold tenement, an entry was produced of an admittance which purported to be at a special court baron for the manor. Evidence was given that customary tenants attended the court :-Held, that the admission must be taken to be at a customary court baron, and therefore regular. Doe d. Evans v. Walker, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 293; 15 Q.B. Rep. 28. (C) SEIZURE QUOUSQUE.

By the Grand Junction Canal Act (33 Geo. 3. c. lxxx.) a form of conveyance is provided, by which, in consideration of a sum of money, the owner of land grants and releases all his right, title and interest to the company, habendum to the company for ever, by virtue and according to the true intent and meaning of the act, which form of conveyance it is enacted shall be valid and effectual. JS being seised of copyhold land of the manor of R, conveyed it by deed in the statutory form to the company, the lord of the manor not being a party to the deed:-Held, that the conveyance only transferred all that J S could himself transfer without the lord, but that it left the lord's rights untouched. Held also, that copyhold land, though not expressly named, was included in the Canal Act.

The land having been formed into the canal, JS died, leaving an infant heir, and having devised his copyholds to devisees in trust, who were, in pursuance of the will, admitted tenants of all the land, except so much as formed part of the canal. After proclamations made for the party entitled as tenant to come in and be admitted, the lord seised quousque, and brought ejectment, and afterwards an action for the mesne profits against the company: -Held, that the lord was entitled to treat the company as trespassers after the death of J S, and was not compellable or entitled to receive compensation under the Canal Act. Held, also, that (the infant heir, and not the devisees, taking the legal estate) the common law right of the lord to seize quousque was not taken away by 11 Geo. 4. & 1 Will. 4. c. 65.

The special verdict in the action for mesne profits found, that the proclamations for the party entitled to come in and be admitted were made at three courts not found to be consecutive courts; the first and third of which were stated to be general courts baron, but the second was simply called a court baron; that at the last court a warrant issued to the bailiff to seize the land into the hands of the lord, and that the bailiff did accordingly, in pursuance of the warrant, seize the lands into the hands of the lord until a tenant should come and be

admitted; and that an action of ejectment was afterwards brought, in which judgment was obtained, and a writ of possession executed:-Held, that the seizure quousque was valid, although the warrant authorized an absolute seizure, no warrant being necessary; and as the act was done by the bailiff or agent, and for the benefit of the lord, who was at liberty to adopt it.-Held, also, that the absence of a finding that the proclamations were made at consecutive general courts baron did not affect the plaintiff's right to judgment, as the judgment in ejectment gave him a good title by estoppel, against which the jury were at liberty to find the truth, which they had not done. Dimes v. the Grand Junction Canal Co., 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 107; 9 Q.B. Rep. 469.

(D) RIGHT OF LORD TO COMPENSATION. [On Statutory Change of Tenure; see (C) Seizure quousque.]

(a) Title to the Copyright.

An alien amy, the author of a work first published in England, has a copyright in it whether it be composed in this country or abroad.

A contemporaneous publication abroad does not defeat the copyright here,

A special case stated that the copyright was sold by letter to the plaintiff, and that such a sale was valid by the law of the country where it was made: -Held, that the plaintiff was an "assign" of the author, under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. ss. 2, 3, and as such entitled to copyright. Cocks v. Purday, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) C.P. 273; 5 Com. B. Rep. 860.

The assignee of a foreign author of a work published in England, without having been before published abroad, has a copyright in this country.

In an action for infringing the copyright in an opera, the defendant, in order to prove a publication abroad before June 1831, offered in evidence the statement of a witness that he had seen in print at Milan many parts of the opera prior to that date: -Held, that this evidence was inadmissible without accounting for the non-production of the original printed document.

The statement of a witness that he had heard, before June 1831, persons in society sing parts of an opera at a piano, with printed music before them, is no evidence that the contents of this printed music corresponded with the opera in question. Boosey v. Davidson, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Q.B. 174; 13 Q.B. Rep. 257.

An assignment of the copyright of a song, under statute 8 Anne, c. 18. s. 1, in order to entitle the assignee to maintain an action for a piracy, must be by an instrument in writing, attested by two witnesses. Davidson v. Bohn, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) C.P. 14; 6 Com. B. Rep. 456.

A person who writes words to an old air, and procures an accompaniment, and publishes them together, is entitled to copyright in the whole work, and may describe his title accordingly in a declaration.

B wrote words to an old air, and got his friend H to compose an accompaniment; and B agreed in writing with L to execute a proper assignment of the whole work to him or any persons he might name. B accordingly executed a deed of assignment to L & C, the plaintiffs. The defendant published a copy of the whole work. An action having been brought for the infringement of the copyright, the defendant gave notice of objections to the plaintiffs' title under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. s. 16, in which he stated that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the copyright, but did not state who were:-Held, first, that B had copyright in the whole work; secondly, that the defendant was not entitled under his notice to object that no assignment of the accompaniment from H to the plaintiffs had been proved, even although the objection arose on the plaintiffs' case; and, thirdly, that the agreement to assign was executory, and did not operate as an assignment so as to render the subsequent deed of assignment inoperative. Leader v. Purday, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) C.P. 97; 7 Com. B. Rep. 4.

A foreign author, residing and composing his work abroad, sending it to this country and first publishing it here, does not acquire any copyright in England. And a British subject who purchases of such foreign author such right as the latter had in his own country does not stand in a better situation in this country than the foreign author. Assuming, however, a foreign author and his assigns to be by law entitled to copyright in this country, where he means to publish contemporaneously in England and abroad, neither he nor his assigns are disentitled to copyright by reason of the publication having taken place abroad at an earlier hour on the same day than a corresponding publication took place in this country. Boosey v. Purday, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Exch. 378; 4 Exch. Rep. 145.

Upon motion for an injunction to restrain the sale of a periodical containing articles copied from the plaintiffs' Gazette, it was held that the plaintiffs had not made out such a title to the copyright in the articles as was required by the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, since it appeared that although the editor was paid for supplying the articles and other contributions upon the terms that all copyright in the Gazette and in all literary matters supplied thereto should belong to the plaintiffs, yet it was not stated that the contributors had been actually paid for their contributions. Injunction refused,

with liberty to the plaintiffs to bring an action. Brown v. Cooke, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 140. The plaintiff obtained an injunction to restrain the defendants from printing and publishing an article or essay as a separate or distinct work or otherwise than as a part of a work called the Encyclopædia Metropolitana. The plaintiff stated that the article was written solely for the Encyclopædia, that no agreement had been executed between him and the publishers, and that he did not intend to give any additional right beyond that of publishing the article in the Encyclopædia. A motion to dissolve, on the ground that the plaintiff had parted with all his right in the article, and that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, it was the custom of the trade that articles furnished to publications of this nature might be reprinted in a separate form,-was refused, with costs. Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 210; 16 Sim. 190.

A bill filed by A against C stated that A and B had together made various etchings for their own amusement, and without any view to publication, and that C had improperly and surreptitiously obtained impressions of those etchings, and had printed and advertised for sale a catalogue of the etchings. Upon affidavits in support of the bill, an injunction was granted to restrain C from publishing the catalogue. C put in an answer, in which he stated that he believed that the impressions had not been improperly obtained, but did not suggest any mode in which they could have been properly obtained. Upon a motion by C, after answer, for dissolving the injunction, it was ordered that the injunction should be continued. Prince Albert v. Strange, 18 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) Chanc. 120; 1 Mac. & G. 25; 1 Hall & Tw. 1.

(b) Actions and Suits for Infringement of Copyright.

(1) Joinder of Parties.

The bill stated that one of the plaintiffs had composed a book, and that all the plaintiffs had caused the book to be printed and published for their joint benefit, and the said book had been duly registered by the plaintiffs as proprietors of the copyright thereof at Stationers' Hall, and the copyright had ever since remained in the plaintiffs, for their joint benefit. The bill also alleged that the defendants had published a book, in which numerous passages were copied from the plaintiffs' book, and it prayed an injunction to restrain the sale of the defendants' book:-Held, upon motion, for the injunction, that under the Copyright Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, the plaintiffs had a joint right to sue.

Held, also, upon comparison of the two books, that in the defendants' book there had been such copying from the plaintiffs' book as would entitle them to the injunction. Stevens v. Wildy, 19 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 190.

(2) Pleading and Evidence.

In an action for the infringement of a copyright, the plaintiff will not be allowed a count on the statute 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, in conjunction with a count for the infringement of the same copyright at common law. DIGEST, 1845-1850.

Under a count on the above statute for infringing a copyright, setting forth the requisitions of the statute, and concluding contra formam statuti, the plaintiff may set up his common law right if he fail to bring himself within the operation of the statute. Boozey v. Tolkien, 17 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) C.P. 137; 5 Dowl. & L. P.C. 549; 5 Com. B. Rep. 476.

In an action on the case for an infringement of the copyright of a certain book, the defendant pleaded several pleas, denying that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the copyright; that there was any copyright subsisting; that the books were first published in England; and that the copies complained of were unlawfully printed:-Held, on application by the plaintiff to have the notice of objections, delivered with the defendant's pleas under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45. s. 16, amended, that the alleged first publication having taken place abroad, and so far back as the year 1831, it was sufficient for the defendant to state the year of the first publication, and that it was not necessary that he should specify the day or month. But that he was bound to state the name of the party whom he alleged to be the proprietor or first publisher, the title of the work, the place where, and time when, the first publication took place.

Held, also, that he was not entitled to object that some person whose name is to the defendant unknown, and not the plaintiff, was the proprietor of the said copyright." Nor "that the plaintiff was not himself the author." Nor "that the work was not first printed or published in the "British dominions." Nor that the plaintiff never acquired any title by assignment or otherwise, to the copyright. Nor that there was no valid assignment, &c. Nor "that there is no copyright in a work first published out of the British dominions, under such circumstances as the books in question were published."

But that he might object that A B, if any one, and not the plaintiff, was the proprietor; and that at the time of committing the alleged grievances no copyright in the work was subsisting. Boosey v. Davidson, 4 Dowl. & L. P.C. 147.

(3) Costs.

The costs of a suit to protect a copyright will follow the result of an action at law, to try the validity of the copyright, although the mode of defence in the action directed at law may have been improper.

Where upon a bill filed to restrain the alleged infringement of a copyright, the bill was retained, with liberty for the plaintiff to try the title by an action at law, and the action was brought and failed, it is of course that the bill should be dismissed with costs. Chappell v. Purday, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 261; 2 Ph. 227.

(B) MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS AND DRAMATIC ENTERTAINMENTS.

The plaintiff was the original composer of the music of a song of a narrative character, which he sang publicly for profit, and accompanied it by gesture and expression. The defendant announced by handbills the performance of, and subsequently performed, the plaintiff's song at Crosby Hall, a

2 C

350.

The protection given by 5 $ *Viet, e. 65. to any new or original design or any article of manufac ture having reference to some purpose of aunty so far as such design shall be or the shape or configuration of such arvcie, “ is not cicacy applicable to the design of a "procvetor adei," "winien consisted in making in the 'abei au oveit hoie and aning it with a ring of metal, through which a string attachThe Court ing the label to packages passed. refused to grant an unjunction before the hearing against an in ringement of sued a design.

Query The meaning of "shape or configuration" in the act. Margvisum v. Wright, 2 De Ger & S. 420.

Whether, in the condition of copyright mentioned in section 4 of the Designs Copyright Act (5 & 6 Viet. e. 100.) that the design has, before publication, been registered, the term publication is limited to publication after the design has been embodied and introduced into some fabric-quare. Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Mac. & G. 231; 2 Hall & Tw. 437.

CORONER.

A coroner's inquisition on paper only, instead of parenment but not having been quashed), is admissible in evidence, not as an inquisition proving the statements therein contained, but to shew that an inquiry into the subject-matter of it did in fact take piace. Regina v. Gregory, 15 Law J. Rep. N.S., M.C. 38; 8 Q.B. Rep. 508.

A coroner's inquisition finding a person felo de se will be quashed if written on paper; it should be written on parchment. Regina v. Whalley, 19 Law I. Rep. (N.) Q.B. 14; 7 Dowl. & L. P.C. 317.

The Quarter Sessions has a discretion as to ailowing the fees payable to coroners under 25 Geo. 2 c. 29, in case of inquisitions duly taken, and the Court of Queen's Bench will not controul that discretion.

A coroner is entitled to be reimbursed the necessary expenses of holding inquests (such as fees to medical men, payments to the jurors, and for hire of rooms, &c.) which he is compelled to discharge by 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 68, the power of examining him on oath given to the Quarter Sessions by sections 3 of that statute, being only with regard to these expenses having been actually incurred, and not to the propriety of holding the inquest. Regina v. the Justices of Carmarthenshire, 16 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 167; 10 Q.B. Rep. 796.

Certain freeholders of the county of S presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor praying that a writ issued for the election of a coroner might be set aside, or its execution stayed until after a meeting of the Quarter Sessions, at which the magis trates of the county intended to propose a division of the office. The Lord Chancellor, in the absence of any authority in support of the application, refused to interfere. In re the Coronership of Salop, 1 Mac. & G. 377.

CORPORATION.

[See COMPANY-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.]