HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0002 and id is 1 raw text is: JEFFERYS V. BOOSEY [1854]
me then with the other Judges, that there was sufficient on the record to show that
the rate had been made by all those who constituted what has been called the
minority. Of course, as I [814] did not hear the case argued at your Lordships'
bar, I give no opinion at all upon the case, and should have taken no part in it,
had it not been that my noble and learned friend Lord Brougham, who did hear this
case, but was compelled by ill health to quit London before the matter came under
final decision in your Lordships' House, requested me to say that having, by the
courtesy of my noble and learned friend, seen the opinion that he was about to give,
in moving the judgment of your Lordships' House, he entirely concurs in the whole
judgment, with, perhaps, that same qualification which I have stated. He added,
that the doubt he expressed as to that point, rather adds to the force of this judg-
ment in respect of the main result, because it excludes the notion of coming to this
conclusion upon any other ground than the general ground that the rate must be
made by the majority, and that no other rate is valid.
Judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, and Judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, reversed.-Lords' Journals, 12th Aug. 1853.
[815] CHARLES JEFFERYS,-Plaintiff in Error; THOMAS BOOSEY,-Defendant
in Error [February 16, 17, 20, June 29, August 1, 1854].
[Mews' Dig. iv. 459, 484, 546. S.C. 24 L.J. Ex. 81, 1 Jur. N.S. 615; 20 L.J. Ex.
354; 15 Jur. 540. As to position of foreigner, see Routledge v. Low, 1868,
L.R. 3 H.L. 111; 33 Vict. c. 14, s. 2; the International Copyright Acts,
1844-1886 (7 and 8 Vict. c. 12 ; 15 Vict. c. 12; 49 and 50 Vict. c. 33); and the
Berne Convention, 1886; Hafstaenyl v. American Tobacco Co. (1895),
1 Q.B. 347; Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 73. As
to assignment, see Copyright Act, 1842, s. 13. See also Boacicault v. Chatter-
ton, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 276; Caird v. Sime, 1887, 12 A.C. 343; Tuck v. Priester,
1887, 19 Q.B.D. 54, 640; Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middlesborough and District
Tradesmen's Protection Association, 1889, 40 Ch.. D. 434; Walten v. Lane
(1900), A.C. 539.]
Foreigner--Copyrigh t-Assignment of Copyright.
The object of 8 Anne, c. 19, was to encourage literature among British subjects,
which description includes such foreigners as, by residence fiere, owe the
Crown a temporary allegiance; and any such foreigner, first publishing his
work here, is an author within the meaning of the statute, no matter
where his work was composed, or whether he came here solely with a view to
its publication.
Copyright commences by publication; if at that time the foreign author is
not in this country, he is not a person whom the statute meant to. protect.
An Englishman, though resident abroad, will have copyright in a work of his
own first published in this country.
B., a foreign musical composer, resident at that time in his own country, assigned
to R., another foreigner, also resident there, according to the law of their
country, his right in a musical composition of which he was the author, and
which was then unpublished. The assignee brought the composition to this
country, and, before publication, assigned it, according to the forms required
by the law of this country, to an Englishman. The first publication, took
place in this country:
Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, that the
foreign assignee had not, by the law of this country, any assignable copy-
right here in this musical composition.
Per Lords Brougham and St. Leonards.-Copyright did not exist at common law;
it is the creature of statute.
H.L. x. 681 22a
IV tt.L.C., 814](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0002&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)