day of first publishing thereof, which shall be truly Prerogative printed, with the name of the printer or proprietor Copyright. at each end of every such piece of linen, &c. It has not been determined upon this statute, whether an action can be supported, though the requisites as to the date and name are not complied with. The only determination upon it is the case of Mackmurdo v. Smith (a), when the Court of King's Bench were of opinion that the omission of an averment in the declaration," that the day, &c. was printed," was aided by verdict, it being stated in the declaration, that the defendants pirated the pattern within the term of three months from the day of the first publishing thereof, and while the plaintiffs were entitled to have the sole right of printing the same. 1 ‛1? The final decision upon the much agitated question Prerogative as to the common law right of an author to his copyright. literary productions, has excluded any other title in authors or their assigns, except that which they derive under these statutes (b). There is, however, one acknowledged exception to this rule, in respect of that right vested by prerogative in the crown, to the exclusive publication of certain works, and which has been made the subject of grant, from time to time, to various patentees. (a) 7 T. R. 518. (b) Donaldson v. Beckett, 2 Bro. P. C. Ed. Toml. 129. Prerogative Bible. Almanacks. These are, the exclusive privilege of printing acts of parliament, proclamations, orders of council, &c. liturgies, and books of divine service (a). The translation of the Bible is also one of those works which, notwithstanding some doubts occasionally thrown out to the contrary (b), appears to be a prerogative copy (c). An exclusive right was also supposed to exist in the crown of printing almanacks: this had been granted by letters patent of James I. to the Stationers' Company, and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge; and though the right had never been solemnly determined at law, yet it was considered so fully established, that injunctions had frequently been granted upon it in the Court of Chancery (d). A bookseller, however, of the name of Carnan, determined to try this right, printed and sold large quantities of almanacks, upon which a bill for an injunction and an account was filed against him in the Exchequer by the two universities and the Stationers' Company: a case was directed to the court of C. B. as to the validity of that patent. After two arguments, that court certified against the legality (a) 2 Bl. Com. 410. Company of Stationers' case, 2 Ch. Ca. 76. Basket v. Cunningham, 2 Eden, 137. 1 Bl. Rep. 370. Eyre v. Carnan, cit. 6 Ves. 697. Basket v. University of Cambridge, 2 Burr. 661. 1 Bl. Rep. 105. (6) Anon. 1 Vern. 120. Hill v. University of Oxford, ib. 275. Grierson v. Jackson, Irish T. R. 304. (c) 2 Bl. Com. 405. Basket v. Parsons, 6 Ves. 699. Basket v. Watson, ib. Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 689. (d) Stationers' Company v. Lee, 2 Ch. Ca. 66. Same v. Wright, ib. 76. Same v. Partridge, cit. 2 Bro. P. C. Ed. Toml. 137. of the patent, and the court of Exchequer dismissed Prerogative the bill. A bill was afterwards brought into the Copyright. House of Commons to revest that monopoly, but was rejected by a considerable majority (a). There is another species of copyright in some Lords. measure resembling the last, and said to be founded Trials before not on property, but the public interest, according the House of to which the House of Lords has, on certain occasions, asserted to itself the exclusive privilege of directing and granting the publication of its judicial proceedings. It has accordingly, in every case of impeachment or indictment since the time of Dr. Sacheverell's trial, made orders that the Lord Chancellor for the time being should cause the trial to be published, with a prohibition to other persons to publish it. Upon the foundation of an order of this nature, an injunction was granted by Lord Bathurst, before answer, to restrain the publication of the trial of the Duchess of Kingston (b); and upon this precedent Lord Erskine granted an injunction until the hearing, to restrain the publication of Lord Melville's trial (c). It is to be regretted that the right was in neither of these occasions discussed at the hearing, as in the former the defendant submitted, and the latter ended in a compromise. There is a distinction between the two cases, which is noticed by Lord Erskine, but not as if he thought it made any material difference: the House 35. (a) Vide Ridgway's edition of Lord Erskine's Speeches, Vol. I. (b) Bathurst v. Kearsley, East. 1776, cit. 13 Ves. 504. (c) Gurney v. Longman, 13 Ves. 493. 1 Construction of Lords had permitted the Duchess of Kingston of the Statute to employ a person to take notes, she had delivered of Anne. the notes to her counsel to be corrected, and had afterwards delivered the copy so corrected to the defendant, with directions to publish them for her protection. Sessions There is still an earlier case, founded upon the same principle, and which is more satisfactory, as having been established at the hearing. A bill was filed by printers, who had bought from the Lord Mayor the copies of the Sessions Paper; upon which Lord Hardwicke, upon the ground of its having been always usual for the Lord Mayor to appoint a printer of the trials, and to take a consideration for it, granted an injunction till the hearing. The cause afterwards came on before Lord Northington, and the injunction was made perpetual by him at the hearing (a). Entry at It will here be proper to notice certain determinations upon the construction given to the statute of Anne, to show what publications have been considered as entitled to the protection which is given by it, and in general in what cases the courts of equity have thought proper to interpose. It is provided by the second section of this statute, that no bookseller, printer, or other person, should be subjected to the forfeitures or penalties therein (a) Manby v. Owen, cit. Burr. 2330. S. C. MS. of Anne. mentioned, unless the title to the copy of such book Construction or books should before publication, be entered in the of the Statute register book of the Company of Stationers. It was doubted, upon the construction of this clause, whether an author who had not entered his work, could maintain an action on the case for damages against a person pirating his work. The court of King's Bench held, that the statute having vested the right in the author, the common law gave the remedy by action on the case for the violation of it (a). It had been before decided in equity, that it was no objection to a bill for an injunction and an account, that the book had not been registered at Stationers' Hall (b). It was decided by the Court of King's Bench, Acting not a publication. that evidence of the defendants having acted a dramatic composition on the stage, was not evidence of a publication within the meaning of the statute of Anne. Mr. Justice Buller observed, that reporting any thing from memory, could never be a publication within the statute; the mere act of repeating could not be left as evidence to the jury that the defendant had pirated the work itself (c). to restrain Injunctions have, however, in two instances, been Injunctions granted to restrain the "performing, or causing, or acting. permitting to be performed" dramatic works, of which the plaintiff was the proprietor (d). (a) Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 620. (b) Baller v. Walker, cit. 2 Atk. 94. Vide ante, p. 266, as to the compliance with the directions contained in the statutes, which vest a property in engravings and patterns. (c) Coleman v. Wathen, 5 T. R. 245. (d) Morris v. Harris, 1814. Morris v. Kelly, 20th June, 1820. T |