under stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 11, should not be varied or expunged. By the affidavits it appeared that these entries were: 1st, One (in the form No. 3, in the schedule to that Act) made on 6th October, 1848, by which it appeared that Robert Cocks was the proprietor of the copyright of a musical piece called "The Lancers' Quadrilles," first published by himself in Middlesex, on 6th October, 1848: 2. One of 29th June, 1847, by which Felix Yaniewicz, professing to be the author of a musical piece called "A Polish Rondo,” accepted the benefit of the extension of copyright, under that Act, and declared the copyright to be the property of Isaac Willis: 3. A similar entry, on 26th February, 1853, by which Ernesto Spagnoletti, professing to be the author of another musical piece called "La Dorset," accepted the extension of copyright under that Act, and declared Robert Cocks to be the owner of the copyright. Davidson deposed to the effect that an action had been commenced against him by *Cocks, who had purchased Willis's right to the second air, for publishing these three airs, which Davidson had done: Davidson did not claim any copyright for himself; but he deposed to his belief that all the three airs were old, that the first was not first published by Cocks in 1848, and that neither Yaniewicz nor Spagnoletti were the authors of the airs which they claimed. The ground suggested for expunging the entries was, that these entries would be primâ facie evidence against Davidson. He deposed to information and belief that one of these airs was in the original "Beggars' Opera," and produced, attached to his affidavits, a printed sheet of music containing the third. This sheet had been published in 1817, at a time when, as "he was informed and believed," Ernesto Spagnoletti was not ten years old; and the author was said to be his father, a well known composer now dead for many years. Borill and Webster now showed cause: The affidavit is only of hearsay. (LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: If the fact really be that an old air is now entered in the registry as if newly composed, what can be deposed to except information and belief as to its antiquity?) Bramwell and Willes, in support of the rule, argued that the affidavit furnished sufficient ground for believing that the entries. Ex parte DAVIDSON. [ *578 ] Ex parte DAVIDSON. [ *579] were untrue, and that the use of them at the trial of Cocks v. Davidson would be a grievance to Davidson. (LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: If the entry is expunged, Cocks loses his title for ever. The Legislature did not intend that there should be a final decision on the question of property on affidavit.) There is no objection, on Davidson's part, to allow the rule to be That course Bovill, for Cocks, refused to give such an undertaking. LORD CAMPBELL, Ch. J.: We are not prepared to expunge these entries; but we think there is enough shown to justify us in ordering, proprio rigore, and without consent, that the rule be enlarged until the trial of an issue, in which Cocks shall be plaintiff, and on the trial of which he shall not use these entries as evidence. ERLE, J. and CROMPTON, J. concurred. The following order was made. "That the rule be enlarged until the next Term; and that an issue be tried at the sittings in London after this Term, in which said issue the said Robert Cocks shall be plaintiff, and the said George Henry Davidson shall be defendant, and the question to be tried shall be, Whether there was copyright in all, or any, and which, of the pieces of music in question, and whether the said Robert Cocks was proprietor of the copyright, in all or any or which of the said pieces of music. And that the entries made at Stationers' Hall be not set up at the trial of the said issue. And it is further ordered that the proceedings in the action between the above mentioned parties be stayed unless the said Robert Cocks elects within a week not to use the said entries or any of them at the trial." (1) 67 R. R. 357 (12 M. & W. 303). ARNOLD v. DIMSDALE. (2 El. & Bl. 580-604; S. C. 22 L. J. M. C. 161; 17 Jur. 1157.) By charter of Edw. IV. the Crown granted to the abbot and convent of S. the right of appointing their own justices, with power of oyer and terminer for all felonies, trespasses and misdemeanours occurring within the liberty of S., in the county of H., with a non-intromittant clause; and that they might have a gaol, under their own government, without interference by other justices or others, for felons and malefactors taken within the liberty, till such were delivered by due course of law. Stat. 31 Hen. VIII. c. 13, gave the Crown the franchises appertaining to the then dissolved abbeys, or those that should thereafter be dissolved, as largely as the abbots ought to have held the same at the time of their coming to the King's hands. Afterwards, 5th December, 1539, the abbey of S. was dissolved. Afterwards, by stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 20, it was enacted that the same liberties, franchises and jurisdictions which the late owners had exercised within three months before the abbeys came to the King's hands should be revived in the King's hands. Within the liberty was a house of correction, supported exclusively by rates raised in the liberty. The liberty did not contribute to the county rate. The keeper was appointed by the justices of the liberty. Quarter Sessions were held within the liberty at which offences committed within the liberty were tried: Held, that justices of the county might, sitting out of the liberty and in the county, commit a party convicted, under stat. 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, s. 27 (1), of an assault done within the liberty, to the house of correction of the liberty. Whether, if the offence had not been committed within the liberty, they could have done so by virtue of stat. 27 Geo. III. c. 11 (2), quære. [See now Prisons Act, 1877 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 42), ss. 3, 4, 5 and 16.—A. C.] 1853. June 13. WESTOBY v. DAY (3). (2 El. & Bl. 605-629; S. C. 22 L. J. Q. B. 418; 18 Jur. 10; 21 L. T. O. S. 183.) In an action of debt by W. against D., D. pleaded that the debt had been attached in the hands of D. as garnishee in a plaint of debt in the court of the mayor and aldermen of the city of London by C. against W. Replication that the alleged debt sued for in the mayor's court did not arise or accrue within the jurisdiction of that court, nor had that court had at any time jurisdiction thereof: : Held, on demurrer, a bad replication. The custom of foreign attachment in the mayor's court does not apply to (1) Repealed, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 95, s. 1. (2) Repealed by S. L. R. Act, 1871. (3) Cited, Mayor of London v. Cox (1867) L. R. 2 H. L. 239, 269, 36 L. J. Ex. 225; Cooke v. Gill (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 107, 113, 42 L. J, C, P. 98; London Joint Stock Bank v. Mayor 1853. May 31. June 13. Nov. 14. [605] debts, the beneficial interest of which is vested in a person other than the defendant sued in that court, whereof the garnishee has notice; and such debts are not attachable under the custom. So certified by that court through the Recorder, and held a good custom by this Court upon demurrer. DECLARATION for money due from defendant to plaintiff on a writing obligatory, dated 6th May, 1852, by which defendant acknowledged himself to be bound to plaintiff in 1,600l., conditioned for repayment by defendant to plaintiff, with interest, of 8007., lent by defendant to plaintiff, and payable by instalments; that is to say, 2001. and 481. for interest, on 1st January, 1853 (the rest by three other instalments, at days named). Breach: Nonpayment of the 2487. on 1st January, 1853, or since. Plea: That the city of London now is, and immemorially hath been, an ancient city and that there is, and immemorially hath been, a custom therein &c. The plea then set out the custom of foreign attachment, substantially to the effect following. That, if any person affirms a plaint in debt in the court of her Majesty holden before the mayor and aldermen of the said city, in the chamber of the Guildhall, and, upon such plaint, it be commanded by the court to any serjeant-at-mace, &c., to summon such defendant to appear in the same court to answer the plaintiff; and if it is returned, by such serjeant, &c., that defendant has nothing within the city or liberties whereby he can be summoned, nor is to be found within the city; and such defendant, at that court, being solemnly called, makes default; and in the same court it is alleged by plaintiff that any other person *owes, or has owed, to defendant any sum of money amounting to the debt in such plaint specified, or any part thereof: then, at the petition of such plaintiff for process according to the custom (that is to say: that such person, so owing or having owed such debt, whether the same be then payable or to become payable at a day to come, being found within the jurisdiction of the court, may be warned by the serjeant, &c., not to part with such debt or sum of money without the license of the court, but the same in his hands and custody safely to keep, so that defendant may be attached thereby, that he may appear in court to answer plaintiff in the plea in such plaint specified), it is commanded by the court to the serjeant, &c., to attach such defendant, in such plaint, by such sum of money, so being in the hands &c., according to the said custom, so that such defendant may appear at the then next court to be holden before the said mayor and aldermen, to answer the plaintiff; and then, if such serjeant, &c., return such defendant to be attached according to the said custom, by such sum to be defended and kept, so that such defendant may appear at the then next court to answer such plaintiff in the plea in such plaint specified, and if the defendant, at that and three other courts then next, severally holden before the mayor and aldermen, being solemnly called, does not appear, but makes default; and such four defaults, according to the custom, are recorded against such defendant, at such four courts after such attachment made, and if such plaintiff, at every of such four courts, appear according to the custom: then, at the last of the said four courts, or at any court holden after such four defaults recorded, at the petition of plaintiff, it is used for the court to command *any serjeant-at-mace, &c., to warn such other person, so being found within the city, according to the custom, to appear at any court afterwards holden, to show if anything he has to say for himself why such plaintiff ought not to have execution of such sum so attached; and, if at such court such serjeant, &c., return such other person to be warned according to such custom to appear in the same court to show such cause, and if such person, so warned, duly appear in the same court, and at the same court, or some other court, comes and says that, at the time of making such attachment or at any time since, he had not owed to or detained from, nor did he then owe to or detain from, the defendant named in such plaint the said money so alleged to be in the hands, &c., and attached, or any part thereof, and if issue has been joined between the parties upon such plea, and the jurors, &c., say that, at the time of making such attachment, or at some time since the making of the same, and before the pleading of such plea, such other person had owed to and detained, and at the time of such plea owed to and detained, from the defendant the said sum of money so alleged to be in the hands &c., or some part thereof, and so attached &c., as the proper moneys of the defendant named in the plaint, then it is, and from time immemorial it has been, used and accustomed for such court to award such plaintiff to have execution of such sum of money as such other person has by such jurors been so found to have owed to and detained, and to owe to and detain from the defendant, by sufficient pledges to be found and given by such plaintiff, in such plaint named, in the same court, according to such custom, to restore to such defendant such last mentioned sum of money so attached if such defendant, within a year and a day then next ensuing, |