About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Pump Court 1 (1888-1889)

handle is hein.journals/pumpct8 and id is 1 raw text is: ji3nmp (Jotu VOL. VIII. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1888. No. 107. PUMP COURT. Etc Zrinplc 11ropapct anti UcrbirW. \ i -- CURRENTE CALAMO. De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdam Aliis. WE direct the attention of our readers to the seventh page of our advertising sheets, which contains an interesting something about ourselves. In it our present and future intentions are clearly set forth, and we trust our efforts will, as heretofore, receive the approval of our subscribers. LAST Michaelmas term we had the pleasure to include in our columns signed articles by Lord Bramwell and Mr. H. B. Poland, eminent men of the Bar in their respective spheres. This year we turn to the other branch, and have the pleasure to present our readers with articles from the pen of Sir Theodore Martin, K.C.B., and from Mr. Munton. All over England, we may add, among all English-speaking people, Sir Theodore's name is a household word, and we feel very proud that he is a member of our profession, which for many years he actually and so successfully followed in that department of it known as parliamentary agency. Mr. Munton has made the subject of County Courts his own, and we feel assured that his opinions will be read with in- terest and attention. WE have again to record the advancing figures of the Sun Life Assurance Society. In 188o, the sums covered in this old-established Company were 215,434, whereas in the year just completed they amount to the large total of 706,85r, far surpassing any previous return since 181o. A LANDLORD or reversioner is not in general liable for a nuisance existing on premises let by him, if it did not exist at the date of the letting, but this doctrine has, not un- reasonably, been qualified in the recent case of Sandford v. Clarke, 21 Q. B. D. 398, where the letting was only on a weekly tenancy; by holding the landlord liable for injury sustained by plaintiff, from a nuisance not shown to exist at the time of the creation of the weekly tenancy, though existing for nearly two years before the accident. The ground was that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, there had been a reletting of the premises after the nuisance was created ; and it will be obvious that the common ground of non-liability, viz., that the landlord could not enter and abate without committing a trespass, has not much force in the case of such a tenancy. WHERE a bequest is made by will to husband, wife, and a third person in equal shares, so that prior to the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, husband and wife would have taken one equal share between them, and the third person the other moiety, the share taken by the third person will still, in a will made after the Act, be a half and not a third. But under the bequest to the husband and wife, each will get a quarter of the sum, the wife taking her quarter share as her separate property. This is the effect of reJupp-Jupp v. Buckwell, 57 L. J. R. 774, in which Kay (J.) dissented from the judgment of Chitty (J.) in .ander v. Harris, 24 Ch.D. 222, on appeal, 27 Ch.D. 166. The ground is, in the language of Cotton (L. J.): In my opinion the Act was not intended to alter any rights except those of the husband and wife inter se. FEw decisions of the year have been waited for with as much expectation and interest by the literary world as 11 arne and Co. v. Seebohm, in which the Little Lord Fauntleroy dispute came into Court. From the report, 39 Ch.D. 73, it appears that the play produced contained con- siderable passages extracted almost verbatim from the novel, some of these passages being prominent and striking parts of the dialogue in the novel. Of the play containing these extracts, four copies had been made, one having been deposited with the Lord Chamberlain and the others remaining in defendant's possession. Without these copies the defendant could hardly continue the representation of his play, and the question was whether making them was an invasion of copyright, which is defined by Section 2 of 5 and 6 Vict., c. 45, to be the sole and exclusive liberty of printing or otherwise multiplying copies of any book or part or division of a book. Literally construing these words, the copies of the defendant came withja them ; but, notwithstanding the widehess of the terms, it is clear that not every verbatim reprint of part of a book is an invasion of copyright, and the question remained whether what had been done was only a fair use of the novel, not amounting to an invasion of copyright. In Tins/ey v. Lacy H. and M. 747, it was held that printing andpulishing a play, a portion of which, including the most striking incidents, and much of the actual language, had been taken bodily from the plaintiffs' novel, was an invasion of his copyright therein. Had the defendant Seebohm printed and published his play, Stirling (J.) considered there would have been as substantial an infringement of plaintiffs' right as occurred in Tinsley v. Lacy, and he was of opinion that making the copies made by Seebohm was no less an infringement than if the copies in question had been printed and published. The defendant claimed by his counsel at the bar, the right to make such further copies as might be needful to enable him to give further representa- tions of his piece. It is obvious that the decision, by its indirect result, guarantees to an author the right of dramatising his novel, unless that can be done without any substantial aid from the book. The Court ordered the defendant to state on oath the copies of his work existing from such of these copies as were in his possession or power; to extract all passages copied, taken or colourably imitated from the plaintiffs' book, and deliver up such passages to plaintiffs for cancellation ; to produce to plaintiffs if re- quired by them for examination the copies after the pirated passages had been extracted; and liberty was reserved to plaintiffs to apply for a further order if they were dissatisfied with the result. .

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most