« PreviousContinue »
fendant, as to the liberty to go to the same place a second time for orders; but I left it to the jury upon
the going thither ex necessitate for the purpose of repairs, whether it was not going thither ex justâ causâ; and the jury found the fact in favour of the plaintiffs. I observed to the jury that without the words backwards and forwards, which were in one of the policies, the ship could not go back again to the same port for orders ; that the liberty to touch did not mean to retouch without the words backwards and forwards. I acceded to the proposition therefore that the captain could not go to Carlshamn for orders without those words; but I left it to the jury, that though he had not the liberty to go for orders, yet that would not prevent him going back to Carlshamn ex necessitate for the purpose of repairs; and the jury seem to have found that he did go into Carlshamn for repairs. But if the ship sailed at first from Swinemunde to Carlshamn for orders, there was a deviation instanter, and a necessity arising afterwards will not protect her. Let us see what the evidence was as to that point: the captain said he got directions at Swinemunde to return to Carlshamn, and there wait for orders; that he went back to Carlshamn and went on shore for orders. The case therefore comes to a very nice point upon this evidence. It looks like a deviation, for he set out from Swinemunde to return for orders, and that I think is a deviation, being an excess of the liberty included in this policy; which is to touch at any ports, and not to retouch at the same for orders. Per Curiam,
with the con
The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the Friday,
University of CAMBRIDGE against Bryer. VHIS was an action brought by the plaintiffs on the The 8 Anne,
statute 8 Ann. c. 19., against the defendant, as it necessary for printer of a book called “A Vindication of Mr. Fox's book, composed History of the early Part of the Reign of James' the after the pass
ing of the act, Second,” to recover a penalty of 5l. and also 11. 16s. as and published the value of a printed copy, for not having delivered a after the comprinted copy, upon the best paper, of such book to the position, which
book is printed warehouse-keeper of the Company of Stationers at Sta- and published tioners'-hall for the use of the library of the University sent of the proof Cambridge. The defendant pleaded the general issue; copy-right, to and at the trial before Lord Ellenborough, C. J. at Guild- deliver a copy hall, at the sittings after Michaelmus term, a verdict was paper to the found for the plaintiffs for one penalty of 5l., and 11. 16s., keeper of the
Company of the value of the copy of the said book, upon the best paper, subject to the opinion of this Court on the follow- the use of the
library of the ing case; and with liberty to turn the same into a special University of
Cambridge, verdict, if the Court should so please :
The defendant was the printer of the book in the de- ing the title to claration mentioned, which was composed after the book, and the
consent of the passing of the statute of 8 Ann. c. 19, and published for proprietor to
the publication, the first time after the composition thereof, and also be not entered
in the registerprinted within three months before the commencement
book of the said of the suit. The book was printed and published with Company. the consent of the proprietor of the copy-right. The defendant did not deliver a printed copy of the said book upon the best paper to the warehouse-keeper of the Company of Stationers, at the hall of the said Company, for the use of the library of the University of Cambridge,
any time after 'the printing and before the publication of the said book. The title to the copy of the said book was not entered before publication in the register-book of the Company of Stationers in the usual manner; nor has the consent of the proprietor to the publication been entered in the same manner. The question was, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover : if they were, the verdict was to be entered for 61. 16s.; otherwise, a verdict was to be entered for the defendant.
This case was argued by Littledale for the plaintiffs, and Brougham for the defendant, and the argument turned upon the meaning of the fifth section of the statute 8 Anne, c. 19., which enacts that nine copies of each book that shall be printed and published as aforesaid shall be delivered to the warehouse-keeper, &c. for the use of the Universities. For the plaintiffs it was contended that the words “that shall be printed and published as aforesaid” related to the printing and publishing mentioned in the first section, viz. such a printing and publishing as gave the author or purchaser the copy-right; and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, notwithstanding the title to the copy of the book had not been entered at Stationers'-hall: for the defendant it was urged, that the words related not only to the printing and publishing, but to the entry at Stationers'-hall, prescribed by sect. 2., and therefore without such an entry the defendant was not liable. In support of each of these propositions the several clauses in the 8 Ann. c. 19. were examined on each side, and very fully commented on; and the statutes 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 33, s. 17., and 17 Car. 2. c. 4. s. 2., which gave to the Universities a right to copies of every book printed, were adverted
to. The 15 G. 3. c. 53. s. 6. was also pressed in argument for the defendants, as amounting in its recital and enactment to a declaration by the legislature, that the 8 Ann. c. 19. did not make the delivery of a copy to the Universities necessary, unless an entry of the book was first made at Stationers'-hall; for it recites that the provision in the statute of Anne, for the delivery of the nine copies, had been eluded by an imperfect entry at Stationers’-hall of the title of the book, thereby admitting that the delivery was connected with and made to depend on the entry; and then, in order to prevent this, it provides that the title of the whole of such book shall be entered. The 41 G. 3. c. 107. s. 6. was likewise relied upon' as being a direct legislative interpretation of the statute of Anne to the same effect; and Beckford v. Hood was cited (a). The Court, however, in giving judgment went so fully into these arguments, and into the grounds of their decision, that it is conceived any farther detail would be superfluous.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. I think the sound rule of construing any statute, as indeed it is of construing any instrument, whether it be statute, will, or deed, is to look into the body of the thing to be construed, and to collect, as far as may be done, what is the intrinsic meaning of the thing; and if that be clearly discernible by reference to its own context, I shall not be inclined to raise a doubt upon a construction drawn aliunde, if I can avoid it. I may certainly be obliged by subsequent statutes to put a perverse, and what I should consider an unnatural interpretation on the statute as originally
(a) 7 T. R. 620.
passed. I may be under such compulsion, but I shall certainly endeavour, as far as I can without violating the fair rules of construction, to maintain the integrity of the original text, unvitiated by subsequent misconstruction, if I may so say.
Now the statute of 8 Anne is susceptible of one doubt, and that has been pointed out, which is in the 5th section respecting the delivery, where it is enjoined that the copies shall by the printer be delivered to the warehouse-keeper, and by him, after demand made, to a person duly authorized, for the use of the respective libraries ; and then it goes on, “and if any proprietor, bookseller, or printer, or the warehouse-keeper of the said company, shall not observe the directions of this act therein, that then he and they so making default in not delivering the said printed copies as aforesaid, shall forfeit, besides the value of the said printed copies, the sum of five pounds, for every copy not so delivered.” By this it appears that a duty is enjoined to be performed by the printer and the warehouse-keeper only, and yet a penalty is imposed on the proprietor and bookseller, in respect of whom no particular duty has been previously enjoined ; that is therefore susceptible of some doubt : but perhaps it was intended that these persons were to procure the thing to be done by the printer and warehouse-keeper, and that they should not be exempt from the penalty unless it were done. It has been said that the statute has three objects ; but I cannot subdivide the two first; I think it has only two. The counsel for the plaintiffs contended that there was no right at common law; and perhaps there might not be; but with that we have not particularly any thing to do. He has considered the three objects to be, first, the protection of authors, by vesting the right in them; then the fortifying their