"The ownership of an author's manuscript after his death, where such ownership has
been acquired under a testamentary disposition made by the author and the manuscript
is of a work which has not been published nor performed in public, shall be prima
facie proof of the copyright being with the owner of the manuscript."
Had die regeling terugwerkende kracht? Zo ja, was het dan niet zo dat de term my copyrights
in Dickens'testament eigenlijk alleen maar sloeg op gepubliceerd werk en niet op het
manuscript dat aan Georgina werd nagelaten als my private papers. Bovendien: wat zijn
private papers eigenlijk? Judge Bennet gaat die laatste problemen voorbij door te beslissen dat
de wet van 1911 geen terugwerkende kracht heeft. Dan blijft alleen Georgina's common law
property right over. Op grond daarvan kan ze soms wel publicatie verbieden, maar heeft ze
nog geen auteursrechten. In hoger beroep bevestigt Lord Hanworth deze uitspraak. Hij vraagt
zich echter af hoeveel de uitgever zou hebben betaald, wanneer hij alleen maar een niet
oorspronkelijk exemplaar van het manuscript had mogen inzien. Waarschijnlijk zou dat
bedrag veel lager zijn geweest, omdat dan niet zeker was of hij wel de werkeüjke tekst van
Dickens onder ogen had gekregen. Dat hij nu het echte origineel kon uitgeven, was mede
mogelijk gemaakt door de eigenaren van het manuscript. Doe moesten dus redelijkerwijs ook
wat van de opbrengst krijgen. Hoeveel? Daar is een eenvoudig antwoord op: Equity delights
in equality, zoals Lord Somers in 1695 in de zaak Petit v. Smith al had geoordeeld. De helft
dus van de totale afkoopsom voor het auteursrecht.
DICKENS'S LIFE
OF CHRIST
iVl'ft
FAMILY AGREE TO ITS
PUBLICATION
KoüX
3
HIGH COURT COPYRIGHT
DECISION ~Hf: 7:3L.
Mr. Justice Bennett, in the Chancery
Division, yesterday, delivered his re
served. judgment on the question as to
the devolution of the copyright of
Charles Dickens's Life of Our Lord,"
which appeared exclusively'in The Daily
Mail last March.
l?he parties in the case were Lady
Dickens, jvidow of Sir Henry Fielding
Dickens, K.C., the novelist's son, and
their children, who were beneficially
interested in the estate of Miss Georgina
Hogarth, and. Miss Ethel" Dickens, a
grandchild of the novelist, who repre
sented the residuary legatees under his
will-
The manuscriDt, which had been left
under the will of Miss Georgina Hogarth,
sister-in-law of Charles Dickens, to Sir
Henry Dickens, and bea.ueathed by him
in turn to Lady Dickens, has not itself
been sold.
Mr. Justice Bennett decided on June 7
that the manuscript was a private paper
and passed to Miss Georgina Hogarth
under Dickens's bequest to her. He de
cided yesterday that the Copyright Act
of 1U11 did not give her a beneficial in
terest in the copyright which she did not
Dossess before. On her death it passed
to her executor, Sir Henry Dickens, and
on his death to his executrix, Lady
Dickens but she held it on the trusts
of the will of Charles Dickens as part of
his residuary estate.
A declaration was accordingly made
in favour of the residuary legatees.
It is understood that Charles
Dickens's Life of our Lord may
soon be published, as the result'
of the will.of the late Sir Henry
Dickens (the last surviving son of
the novelist), which was made
public during the week-end.
Sir Henry, who was Common
Serjeant of the City of London for
16 years, died' last month, at the age
of 84. He left £19,892.
FAMILY TO DECIDE
In his will Sir Henry bequeaths
to Lady Dickens the original manu
script of his father's "Life of Our
Lord," and adds
I have felt constrained to act upon
my father's expressed desire that it
should not be published, but I do not
think itright that J should bind, my
children by any such view, especially
as I can find no specific injunction
against such publication.
I therefore direct that my wife and
my children should consider this ques
tion quite unfettered by any view of
mine; and if by a majority they decide
that the manuscript should not be
published I direct my wife to deposit
it with the trustees of. the British
Museum.
But if they decide by a majority
that it should be published, then I
direct tny wife to sell the same'in trust,
to divide the net proceeds of such sale
among my wife»and all my children, m
i-equalfshar.es.".-
In a tribute to "his wife Sir
Henry says I desire to express to
her my deepest and most affectionate
gratitude for her loving and unfailing
devotion, which, together with the
love of all my, dear children, has
made my life one of constant and un
qualified happiness."
gIR,—We are keenly looking forward
to reading Diekens' Life of Our
Lord." It is wonderful that, you ar.e
able to make it available to "all.
Recently there was an article in The
Daily Mail about Charles Dickens and his
wife. My father was first cousin to Kate
Hogarth, w h.o s e
f a m i ly introduced
Dickens into, liter
a r y and. artistic
society. After hei
marriage to Dickens
Kate made the mis
take of insisting or
Mary, her sister, liv
ing with them. Kate
did not, and woulc
not,. - und-erst anc
.Charles... Dickens
nervousand highly
strung temperament
he would not leavt
off writing (or meals
or have any inter
ruption, and wher
trays of food were left untouched out
side his door, poor Kate would dis
solve into tears and have vapours, whicl
were so fashionable in "those days, for hour:
at a time. The result was that when Charle:
Dickens came out ready for dinner o
to attend any social affair. Mary had to g(
in her place Kate was temperamental, bu
certainly not mental," as we use the wore
now. Elizabeth Hogarth,
Werne Cottage, Langport, Somerset,.
Mrs. Dickens
Kate Hogarth).
Long ago, Mrs. Kate Perugini, the
novelist's daughter, deposited a box of
intimate papers about her father at the
Museum This box was to have been
opened in 1920.
But in 1920 the late Sir Henry Fielding
Dickens objected. Not till I am dead]
he said to the Museum Trustees; and
they accepted his objection.
Last week, unhappily, Sir Henry died,
and now no child of Charles Dickens
remains alive. Therefore, there is no
longer any personal reason why this box
of. Dickens' papers should not be made
available to students.