1850.-King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox.

once by the rebellious subjects of the King of the Two Sicilies, was sent by them into this country, in such a manner that, by the doctrine of ear-mark, possession may be traced to certain persons who are defendants upon the record. In that respect, then, the demurrer must be overruled.

With respect to the objection that was made for want of parties: it does not appear to me that there is any want of parties upon the record. The rebellious subjects, certainly, are not necessary parties to the record; but those are made parties to the record who, through the instrumentality of the rebellious subjects while they were in a state of rebellion, did, unlawfully and improperly, acquire possession of the king's property.

Therefore, the demurrer must be overruled.

thorities appear to settle these points: That the sovereign of a foreign country may sue in the tribunals of the realm, but he sues as an individual. An action cannot be sustained in the name of his agents, although they may be regularly empowered to act in the identical business. He is the party in interest. He must swear to an answer to a cross-bill, if one is required. He would be the party to be examined personally, whenever such an examination was warranted by the rules of the court. If a State ues without the individuality of a monarch, some public officer representing it must be upon the record; and it seems that a Minister Plenipotentiary is not such an officer. In The King of Spain v. Oliver, 1 Peter's C. C. Rep. 217, 276, an action for the covery of duties alleged to be payable to the crown, was brought in the Circuit Court and decided upon its merits. And it appears that an application was made for continuance to take testimony under a commission, upon the affidavit of the Spanish Minister." After reviewing these authorities, the court concludes by admitting that all recognized governments have the right to sue in our courts under the federative itle, and this opinion was affirmed on appeal. See 11 Howard's Practice Reports, aage 576.

Corporation.-Penalties.

1850: 23d and 24th April and 22d May.

An incorporated company demurred to a bill, because the discovery thereby sought might subject it to criminal prosecution under the 59 Geo. III, c. 69, (to prevent the enlisting of his Majesty's subjects for foreign service, and the fitting out, ir his Majesty's dominions, vessels for warlike purposes without his license.)

The court held, that a corporation was not liable to be indicted under that act, and overruled the demurrer.

1850.-King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox.

Another demurrer was filed, by the Steam-packet Company (who were a body corporate,) to certain parts of the bill; because the discovery thereby sought, would subject the company to pains and penalties and to criminal prosecution under 59 Geo. [*335] III, c. 69, s. 7: which *enacts that, if any person within the United Kingdom shall, without the leave and license of his majesty, equip, furnish, fit out or arm, or procure to be equipped, furnished, fitted out or armed, or aid or assist or be concerned in the equipping, furnishing, fitting out or arming any ship or vessel, with intent or in order that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state or potentate, or of any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise any powers of government in or over any foreign state, with intent to cruise or commit hostilities against any state, prince or potentate, with whom his Majesty shall not then be at war, every such person so offending, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, upon any informa tion or indictment, be punished by fine or imprisoninent, or either of them, at the discretion of the court in which such offender shall be convicted.

Mr. Stuart, Mr. Chandless and Mr. Willes appeared in support of the demurrer, and

Mr. Bethell and Mr. Goldsmid in support of the bill.

Sir L. SHADWELL, V. C., said that in some cases, such as not repairing a bridge, or not complying with an order of justices, a corporation might be liable to be indicted; but those cases were exceptional; and the general law of England was that a corporation could not be indicted for a crime: that, since the case was argued, he had consulted a learned judge, who coincided with him in the opinion which he had formed; namely, that the Steam-packet Company could not be indicted under the act referred [*336] to: and he was confirmed in that view by *the language of the act, which referred to individuals only: consequently, the demurrer must be overruled.

1851.-Richardson v. Gilbert.

1

RICHARDSON v. GILBERT.

Copyright.-Periodical Work.

1851 15th and 16th April.

Under the act to amend the law of copyright, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, actual payment for an article written for a periodical work, is a condition precedent to the vesting of the copyright, in the article, in the proprietor of the work: a contract for payment is not sufficient.

ON the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction, by which the defendant was restrained from infringing the copyright claimed, by the plaintiffs, in an article originally published in the Dublin Review, of which the plaintiffs were the proprietors, the question was whether actual payment, for the article, to the composer of it, was a condition precedent to the vesting of the copyright in it in the proprietors of the Review.

That question arose under the 18th section of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45; which enacts that, when any publisher or other person shall, before or at the time of the passing of the act, have projected, conducted and carried on, or shall hereafter project, conduct and carry on, or be the proprietor of any encyclopædia, review, magazine, periodical work, or work published in a series of books or parts, or any book whatsoever, and shall have employed or shall employ any persons to compose the same or any volumes, parts, essays, articles or portions thereof, for publication in or as part of the same, and such work, volumes, parts, essays, articles or portions, shall have been or shall hereafter be composed under such employment, on the terms that the copyright therein shall belong to such proprietor, projector, publisher or conductor, and paid for by such proprietor, projector, publisher or conductor; the copyright in every such encyclopædia, review, magazine, *periodical work and work published [*337] in a series of books and parts, and in every volume, part,

essay, article and portion so composed and paid for, shall be the property of such proprietor, projector, publisher or other conductor, who shall enjoy the same rights as if he were the actual author VOL. I.-N. S.

19

1851. Richardson v. Gilbert.

thereof, and shall have such term of copyright therein as is given to the authors of books by this act; except only that, in the case of essays, articles or portions forming part of and first published in reviews, magazines or other periodical works of a like nature, after the term of twenty-eight years from the first publication thereof respectively, the right of publishing the same in a sepa rate form, shall revert to the author for the remainder of the term given by this act.

Sir W. Page Wood, S. G., and Mr. Renshaw, in support of the motion, said that the bill did not sufficiently show that the copyright in the article was vested in the plaintiffs; inasmuch as it did not allege that the plaintiffs had paid for the article: Brown v. Cooke(a) and Spottiswoode v. Clarke.(b)

Mr. James Parker and Mr. Bagshawe, for the plaintiffs, said that a contract to pay the author for the article, was sufficient to vest the copyright in the proprietors of the Review, and that actual payment was not required, by the act, for that purpose.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was, at first, inclined to be of that opinion; but, after taking time to consider the point, he held that actual payment for the article was made, by the act, a neces

sary condition to the vesting of the copyright therein in [*338] the proprietors of the *Review. His lordship, however,

was of opinion that the title of the plaintiffs did sufficiently appear upon the bill; inasmuch as it alleged, first, that the article was composed, for the plaintiffs, by a person employed by them to compose the same, on the terms that the copyright therein should belong to the plaintiffs, and should be paid for by them (which was an advance towards a good title); and, afterwards, that the plaintiffs were then entitled to the exclusive property and copyright in the article; which, regard being had to the first averment, implied that the plaintiffs had paid the composer for the article.

Motion refused without costs.

(a) 11 Jur. 77.

(b) 2 Phill. 154; and 22 Eng. Ch. R. 154, Am. Ed.

1851.-Attorney-General v. Hardy.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. HARDY.

Wesleyan Chapel.-Mortgagor and Mortgagee.-Trustees.

1951: 7th May.

The trust-deeds of certain Wesleyan Methodist chapels, contained powers of raising money, by mortgage, for the purposes of the trusts. Held, that any of the trustees of the chapels might be mortgagees under this power, and that, if they were such mortgagees, they might exercise all the rights of mortgagees, although in opposition to the trusts.

In this suit, which was instituted by an information and bill, a motion was made that the defendants, William Hardy Cozens Hardy, David Curteis, Thomas Johnson, John Farthing, Robert Burcham, John Randall, George Turner, Jeremiah Earl, James Searles, William Bircham the younger, Joseph Colman and William Hill Ramm, might be restrained from further preventing and interrupting the use and enjoyment of the chapel and premises at Holt, in the county of Norfolk, comprised in the indenture of the 1st of July, 1814, in the information and bill mentioned, for the purpose of preaching *and [*339] expounding God's holy word, and performing any other act of religious worship therein, by the plaintiffs, William Worker and Robert George Bancroft, during the continuance of their appointment by the Conference of the people called Methodists, or, after the termination of such appointment, by other the persons who might be, thereafter, duly appointed by the said Conference for the like purposes, or by any other persons duly authorized with the consent of the plaintiff, William Worker, as the superintendent preacher of the Holt circuit in the information and bill mentioned, or by the superintendent preacher for the time being of the circuit within which the said chapel and premises were or might be situate: and that the said defendants, William Hardy Cozens Hardy, David Curteis, Thomas Johnson, John Farthing, Robert Burcham, John Randall, George Turner, Jeremiah Earl, James Searles, William Bircham the younger, Joseph Colman and William Hill Ramm, might be restrained from permitting or allowing any person or persons whomsoever to have the use and