must be accompanied by a MS. of the work, which will be restored after receiving the "visa" of deposit.

Art. 5. The "tempus utile" for the declaration and deposit required to secure the author's rights is three months from the date of publication, in whole or in part, or from the first representation, in the case of works intended for the stage. A later deposit and declaration will be equally efficacious, save in cases where, during the time which elapsed between the period abovenamed and the date of making the deposit and declaration, third parties shall have re-produced the work, or have procured copies from abroad for sale. In such cases, the author shall only be able to oppose the sale of copies to the extent of the number already printed or imported. Failing agreement on the mode of carrying out this disposition of the Law, the Judicial Authority shall decide.

Art. 6. The extracts of declarations made, whether within the "tempus utile" or later, shall be published monthly, by the Government, in the Official Gazette of the Kingdom.

Art. 7. When the interested parties cannot agree as to the annulling, modifying, or transferring of the declarations previously made, it belongs to the Judicial Authority to take cognisance of the case by summary procedure, conformably to the rights recognised and the rules laid down by the present Law and that of 25th June, 1865, No. 2,337. The Government, on the demand of the interested parties, and at their expense, shall publish, as an appendix to the next publication of the extracts of declaration, the annulments, modifications, and transfers ordered by the Judicial Authority, and also those agreed upon between the parties, or brought about by inheritance.

Art. 8. The present Law is retrospective in its force in regard to works already published, represented, or produced.

If the "tempus utile," fixed by Art. 25 of the Law of 25th June, 1865, is not yet passed, the period appointed by

Art.

5 of the present Law shall be observed so soon as it shall have taken effect.

Norwegian Law of 22nd May, 1875, on the Authorisation of Dramatic Representations.

We give the Articles pertinent to the subject of Copyright of a Law on the authorisation of dramatic representations, of which the preceding portions relate only to formalities to be observed in order to obtain permission to put a play on the stage, &c., and we therefore only print from Art. 7 to the end.

Art. 7. No dramatic work, or musical composition, intended for the stage can be publicly represented without the consent of the author, if he be a Norwegian citizen. Neither the rehearsal of a work, or portions of a work, without stage properties (mise en scène), nor the rendering in a concert of the overture, or detached pieces of a musical composition, shall be deemed public representations.

Art. 8. The transfer, by consent of the author, to another person of the right to reproduce his work does not prevent the author, unless the contrary be expressly stipulated, from granting the same right to a third party, and this right shall be enjoyed by the author in any case in which the work, or composition, shall not have been publicly represented by the grantee of the exclusive right of representation within five consecutive years.

Art. 9. The rights of the author, as laid down in Art. 7, pass on his death to his widow, or, if he be a widower or unmarried, to his heirs, but only for a period of thirty years from his death. If the author dies without leaving a widow or heirs, the representation of his work is absolutely free, unless he shall have transferred his rights to another person, according to the provisions of Art. 8, in which case the grantee, or the persons on whom the rights may have devolved by succession or contract, shall preserve the said rights, save in the case of stipulation for a shorter time, for

thirty years after the decease of the author. Beyond this period, the representation is entirely free.

Art. 10. The unauthorised representation of dramatic or musical works is punished by fines. The person found guilty must be condemned in damages to the injured party. The action is a private one if it has not been brought within one year of the illegal representation.

Bills of Exchange.

ITALY.-Simultaneous Hearing. Delay of Judgment. Different Parties and Interests. Negotiator. Acceptance. Payment when refused by Drawer to be had from Drawer and Endorsers. Court of Appeal, Palermo, 6th September, 1876. Florio & Co. v. Lo Meo. (Circolo Giuridico, Vol. VIII., 1877, Fasc. I., Decisioni Civili, p. 26.)

This was an Appeal from the Tribunal of Commerce of Palermo, involving (1) the question of simultaneous hearing of two causes (riunione di due cause), or suspension of Judgment "pendente lite;" (2) the question against which party an action lies when payment of a Bill of Exchange is refused, either on a technical plea (difetto), or from want of funds to meet it (insufficienza di fondi).

The case arose thus. On 15th April, 1875, Lo Meo, a trader in Palermo, gave an order to Pellegrini Brothers, representatives there of the firm of Protin, Dubè, and Lenoble, of Rheims, for certain woollen, flannel, and merino goods, for his business, to be delivered to him by the end of August of the same year, insured, per Messageries Maritimes, payment to be made, six months after delivery, in gold or silver, without discount. On 28th November, 1875, the merinos alone came to hand, were landed on the 1st December, and taken out of the Custom House by Sigr. Lo Meo on the 2nd December. On 25th January, 1876, Sigr. Lo Meo claimed damages from Pellegrini Bros. for their non-fulfilment of the order for flannels, and for their delay in despatch of the merinos, and invited them to

a friendly settlement (amichevole liquidazione). Pellegrini Bros., without denying the facts recited, alleged that they were not the passive representatives (allegavano non avere rappresentanza passiva) of Protin and Co. On 9th March, 1876, Lo Meo summoned both Pellegrini Bros. and Protin and Co. before the Tribunal of Commerce of Palermo, for damages as above.

Meanwhile, on 10th February, 1876, Protin and Co., had drawn at the bottom of an invoice (fattura), apparently dated 13th October, 1875, a Bill of Exchange to their own order (all' ordine di sè stessa) on Sigr. Lo Meo, for two thousand one hundred and seventy-one francs, twenty-five centimes, the price of the merinos, payable 15th April, 1876, which Bill they transferred to the Comptoir d'Escomptes (cassa di sconto) of Paris, by whom it was endorsed (girata) to Florio and Co.

Lo Meo refused payment when the bill was presented to him, and appended the reasons of his refusal to Sigr. Florio's protest. Instead of taking advantage of the powers given him by Arts. 205 and 250 of the Italian Commercial Code, of sueing the Drawer and Endorsers jointly (solidalmente), Florio summoned Lo Meo before the Tribunal of Commerce, whereupon the latter claimed that the two causes should be heard together, or, at least, that Judgment should be delayed in the case raised by Florio until a decision had been given in the matter pending between him and Protin and Pellegrini. The Tribunal of Commerce rejected this claim, and gave sentence in favour of the Plaintiff (Florio), on 18th July, 1876. Lo Meo appealed on the grounds which constituted his defence in the Court of First Instance.

The Court of Appeal Held, on the question of simultaneous hearing, that there was a formal objection, because such a claim must, according to Art. 229 of the Order of Judicial Procedure (Regolamento Giudiziario), be made to the President of the Tribunal of Commerce at least three

days before the cause came on for hearing in First Instance; and a substantial objection because the cases covered different ground, both as to procedure and parties. But on the question of delay of Judgment till decision of the other cause, Reversed Judgment of Tribunal of Commerce.

On the question against whom an action lies on dishonour of a Bill of Exchange, the Court of Appeal Held that, according to Art. 203 of Comm. Code, acceptance supposes the provision of funds by the Negotiator, and establishes proof of funds in the cases of the Holder and Endorsers. But when the Drawer dishonours a Bill, either on a technical plea (difetto), or for want of funds, the Holder cannot compel payment by the Negotiator (trattario), but has only the right, according to Arts. 205 and 250 of above Code, to sue the Drawer (traente) and Endorsers (giranti), who are joint guarantors (garanti in solido), both of the acceptance and of the payment.

[On this cf. Court of Appeal, Turin, 8th July, 1870, Annali, IV., pt. II., p. 528; Nouguier, last edn., I., n. 439 and 511; Casaregis, disp. CLI., n. 4, vol. III., p. 196.]