nothing less than confiscation of their property. "This was done," as Lord Lyndhurst, L.C., remarked, "by the introduction of one or two ill-considered words in the statute which was meant to be a benefit to literature, but turned out a fatal gift."

When Captain Bell, in 1646, "at great cost and pains discovered a manuscript of Luther's Table Talk marvellously preserved" and published his translation, the House of Commons magnanimously resolved, that he should have the sole disposal and benefit of printing it for fourteen years, and that none should print the same unless licensed by him. This crude resolution, which presented to a man his own property for fourteen years, probably gave the cue to the unknown author of the first Copyright Act of Anne.-Paterson's Lib. Press, 244.

COPYRIGHT IN PRIVATE LETTERS.

It will be seen how fallacious and confused is the notion, that there is a joint property in the letter between the writer and receiver, and that neither can do anything as regards it without the consent of the other. This arises from confounding the fate of the mere paper with the substantial thing which is the medium of communication. The correct rule seems to be that the paper belongs absolutely to the receiver, but the letter, or means of communication, belongs absolutely to the writer, subject only to the limited user of the contents for the receiver's personal benefit. At first the courts were not a little puzzled how to treat the mutual rights of those who sent and who received letters of a private

nature.

Where the receivers of letters, or any other person, has, without the consent of the writer, published, or threatened to publish such letters, the latter may obtain an injunction from the court. It is true that the court seems to have granted this relief on the professed ground of there being a breach of trust, but it would be more correct to hold the act as a tort or violation of the owner's right to do what he pleases with his own letter or communication. There may, however, be sometimes

an express contract between writer and receiver, and the breach of that contract by the latter may be a ground also of the court interfering to restrain publication. There may also be cases in which the receiver of a letter may be entitled to use it, as already stated, for some purpose of vindication or self-defence, in which event the publication may be excused.-Paterson's Lib. Press, 270.

A VALUABLE COPYRIGHT IN A COUNSELLOR'S WORK.

Mr. Bethell, an Irish barrister at the time of the Union. like many of his brethren, published a pamphlet on that much vexed subject, the policy of the then proposed Union. Mr. Lysaght meeting him, said, "Bethell, you never told me you had published a pamphlet on the Union. The one I saw contained some of the best things I have ever seen in any of these productions." "I am proud you think so," rejoined the other, eagerly. Pray, what was the thing that pleased you so much? Why," replied Lysaght, "as I passed a pastry-cook's shop this morning, I saw a girl come out with three hot mincepies wrapped up in one of your productions!"

"

SEEKING ADVICE AGAINST PIRATES OF COPYRIGHT.

When Henry Erskine was a leader of the Scotch bar, he had a contemporary and rival barrister, Mr. Wright, who had originally been a shoemaker, but became in due time a self-taught advocate, and, having little business at the bar, composed a little treatise on mathematics, which was very successful. Sometime afterwards the Encyclopædia Britannica was published, and, among other subjects, treated of this small subject of his, and practically swallowed up words, lines, diagrams, and all the merits as he thought of his little book. The author, highly incensed, consulted his friend Erskine as to bringing an action of damages for invasion of copyright. Erskine, after hearing his complaint, said it was one thing to be right and another thing to get his right. That the publishers of the Encyclopædia were wealthy, and no doubt would defend to the last their ill-gotten gains.

An action might be begun, but nobody could tell when and where it would end. Besides, there were many other authors of little books, who were in the same predicament, and no doubt would be glad if he would fight their battles, and yet would not lift a finger to help him. His advice to Wright was therefore this: "Don't bring your action. But there is an admirable old law called the lex talionis. Go and publish a new edition of your mathematics and"What then?" eagerly exclaimed Wright. "Why," said Erskine, "publish your book, and take in the whole of the Encyclopædia as a quotation!" The mathematician was not satisfied with this advice, and took a grudge against his old friend, and never spoke to him again.

447

CHAPTER XII.

ABOUT WITNESSES AND JURYMEN.

WITNESSES NOT LIABLE FOR SLANDER.

A counsel or advocate conducting a cause in court is exempt from liability for comments and insinuations against third parties, if these are relevant. And allegations in course of the pleadings in suits or in the affidavits relating thereto, and by witnesses, are all privileged from action, even though malice is alleged against the witness. If the moment the witness swerves from the truth, an action were to lie against him at the suit of the party injured, this would be convicting a man of a crime of which he could not be convicted in a court of criminal jurisdiction without the concurring testimony of two. It might be different, indeed, if the process of the court were abused maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause. The great object of the law is to allow witnesses to speak freely, without fear of consequences. Therefore, when a witness gave an answer which was not relevant, yet had reference to the inquiry, and was in supposed vindication of his own character, it was held not actionable as slander.-Paterson's Lib. of Press, 195.

A WITNESS STATING ONLY WHAT HE SAW.

A prisoner's counsel had at a trial several times told a witness, whose character was not high, that he must state nothing which did not pass in the presence of the prisoner. When the time for cross-examination arrived, witness was asked: "Pray, how often have you been transported?" The witness at once answered: "I must not tell that, for it was not in the presence of the prisoner."

JEFFREYS BROWBEATING WITNESSES.

Jeffreys, on one occasion, having examined a witness, who very frequently used the words "lessor and lessee," "assignor and assignee," at last exclaimed: "I question if you know what a lessor or lessee is, for all your formal evidence." "Yes, Sir George, I do," replied the witness; " and I give you this instance; if you nod at me, you are the nodder, and if I nod at you, you are the noddee."

On another occasion, one of the witnesses being called a fiddler, was much offended, and afterwards described himself as a "musicianer." Jeffreys asked him what was the difference between a musicianer and a fiddler. "As much, sir," replied the witness, "as there is between a pair of bagpipes and a recorder."

A witness with a long beard was giving evidence that was displeasing to Jeffreys, when judge, who said: “If your conscience is as large as your beard, you'll swear anything." The old man retorted: "My lord, if your lordship measures consciences by beards, your lordship has none at all."

It is related that Jeffreys, when at the bar, beginning to cross-examine a witness in a leathern doublet, who had made out a complete case against his client, bawled forth, "You fellow in the leathern doublet, pray what have you for swearing?" The man looked steadily at him, and Truly, sir," said he, "if you have no more for lying than I have for swearing, you might wear a leathern doublet as well as I." This blunt reply got to the west end of the town, and was remembered among the courtiers against Jeffreys when he grew to be a great

man.

COUNSEL GETTING RID OF AN ACTION FOR NUISANCE.

Scarlett was employed for the defence in an action for nuisance, brought by the plaintiff, and whose chief witness was a lady living near the alleged nuisance. Scarlett began the cross-examination of this lady by