[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.