1809. PULLER against STANIFORTH. tually earned by Captain Flower from Stockholm, as we before intimated when the cause was laft before us. Poftea to the Plaintiffs. CLEMENTI against GOULDING. THE plaintiff obtained a verdict with damages against the defendant in this action, tried at the Sittings before Lord Ellenborough C. J., for pirating a sheet of music of which the plaintiff had the copyright: and the only queftion was, whether this being a single sheet were within the protection of the ftat. 8 Ann. c. 19. which, mentioning in the preamble" books and other writings,” speaks in the enacting part only of book or books: and liberty was referved to the defendant to move to fet afide the verdict and enter a nonfuit. Garrow moved accordingly at the beginning of the term, and preffed to have the point fettled; adverting to the words of the act which speaks in another part of "every fheet or sheets being part of such book or books." On which the Court, as the point had been reserved, granted him a rule nifi; but Lord Ellenborough C. J. then faid, that though he had leant in favour of the objection at the trial, yet on further confideration he was now difpofed to confider that a beet was a book within the meaning of the act: and he recollected that when the fame question was made in a caufe a few years ago (a), the Court were difpofed to think that the cafe was (a) This was in Hime (or Hine) v. Dale, which was tried in December 1803, and came on first in this court in Hil. 1804, upon a motion by Mr. Erskine to set aside a nonfuit, founded on an objection taken at the trial, that the publication in question, which had been pirated, was a fong printed was within the statute. And fuch appeared to be the opinion of the other Judges. And now, when the cause was called on in the paper of new trials, Scarlett moved to discharge the rule, understanding that it was abandoned and Garrow said that he believed the parties had fubmitted to the intimation given by the Court of their opinion, on his moving for the rule. Per Curiam, Rule discharged. ufen a fingle sheet of paper. He referred to Bach v. Longman, Cowp. 623. where a fenata was certified by this Court to be a writing within the ftatute; and to Storace v. Longman, Sittings after Mich. term 1788, at Guildhall, before Lord Kenyon C. J., where, in an action for pirating mufic, the compofition was ftated in the declaration to be "a certain mufical air tune and writing," and which was in fact a fingle sheet of paper; but no objection was taken on that ground; and the plaintiff recovered a verdict. He obferved that feveral works of great labour and utility were published on fingle sheets; fuch as lunar tables, and alma. nacs and he referred to Jones' Index to the Records, which mentions the Sheriffs' book; one of which he produced in court; and it was a single piece of parchment about a foot long: and he recalled to recollection the familiar 'name of born-bock as an inftance of the old popular application of the term book, which was derived by Johnson from the Saxon boc, a beach, because they wrote on beachen boards; as liber was derived from the bark of a tree ufed for the like purpofe. And he also argued from the inconfiftency of permitting an action to be maintained against a man for pirating a sheet of another's book, which might be composed of two or more sheets; and yet refusing the same protection to the fame compofition if published alone. Finally the cafe stood over till Eafter term following, when the Court, without hearing any argument, made the rule abfolute for a new trial; Lord Ellenborough C. J. saying that it was not fit that such a question should be decided upon a nonfuit; but it would be better to put it upon the record. 1809. CLEMENTI against GOULDING. 1809. Monday, Real property may pass under the defcription of" perfonal eftates" in a will; it being manifeft from the whole of the inftrument, as by terms of di re& reference to that defcrip tion in ulterior difpofitions of the fame real property, that fuch was the devifor's intention. A furrender out of court to the ufe of his will made by the furren hold before his admittance is abfolutely void and of no effect, and cannot be made good by his fubfequent admittance. DOE, on the Demife of JOSEPH TOFIELD, against THIS ejectment was brought by Joseph the brother and year, the William Tofield in 1793 purchased of R. Goldthorpe certain freehold, leasehold, and copyhold lands in Sterukley. The freehold and leafehold were duly conveyed to him; and on the 10th of October in the fame copyhold lands, being copyhold of inheritance and held deree of a copy of the manor of Stewkley, were furrendered out of court, according to the custom of the manor, by R. Goldthorpe and Elizabeth his wife, into the hands of the lady of the manor by the hands of the deputy fteward to the use of William Tofield in fee: and on the 14th of November 1793 they were again furrendered out of court by Wm. Tofield, by the hands of two other customary tenants of the manor, according to the custom thereof, to the ufe of his last will. Both these furrenders were prefented at a manor court holden on the 17th of June 1795; and at the fame court Wm. Tofield was admitted to the premises upon the furrender made by Goldthorpe and his wife in October 1793; there not having been any court previous to this time fince the 15th of June 1791. Wm. Tofield in 1801 purchased of W. Griffin other freehold lands in Stewkley, which were duly duly conveyed to him. In April 1804 W. Tofield died without iffue, being at the time of his death and of the making of his will hereinafter mentioned poff ffed of the faid leafehold premises, and feifed of the faid freehold and copyhold lands purchased of Goldthorpe and Griffin, and alfo feif. d in fee of certain other tenements fpecified in his will, namely, of two tenements in the occupation of H. Chandler and J. Coles, and the house wherein he himfelf dwelt, with the clofes adjoining. On the 21 of January 1804 he made his will duly execute and attested, wherein, after giving pecuniary legacies to his brothers Jofeph, Benjamin, and John, and to kis filters Mary and Elizabeth, he proceeds thus: I give and devife unto my father and mother William and Ann Tofield two tenements now occupied by H. Chandler and J. Coles, with the yard, &c. for and during the term of both or either of their natural lives; and from and after their decease I give and devife the faid premifes to my executrix herein also named. I alfo give and bequeath unto the trustees of the Methodist chapel in Sterkley 30l. &c. I give unto my wife Ether Tofield all my stock of cattle, corn, hays, and grain, fheep, hogs, and cattle of all kinds, household goods and furniture, ready money, and fecurities of money, rights, credits, and perfinal estates whatsoever and wherefoever, fubject nevertheless to the above legacies, to hold to the faid Efther Tofield for and during the term of her natural life, provided the keep fingle; but and if the marry, the fill receive no profits or benefits from my eftates whatfoever, but at the time of her marriage fhall refign up all my perfonal eftates to the after-mentioned legatees in manner following; first, I give and bequeath unto my brother John Tofield the house and premifes wherein I now dwell, with the clofes adjoining, R 4 and 1809. DOE dem. against TOFIELD. 1809. Dox dem. and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging, with the tenements, to hold to him my said brother John Tofield, his heirs and affigns for ever: and the remaining of my against TOPILLD. perfonai estates I give and bequeath to my brother Joseph Tofield, my fifter Elizabeth Ratlidge, and my fifter Mary 1 Capel, fhare and share alike, to hold to them their heirs and affigns for ever. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the leffor of the plaintiff, as heir at law of the testator, were entitled to recover the freehold and copyhold eftates of which the faid teftator died feifed, or any and what part thereof. This cafe was argued on a former day by Peckwell for the plaintiff, and Beft for the defendant; when two queftions were made; 1ft, whether the widow took for life the refidue of the teftator's real property, not before specifically devised, under the description of perfonal estates. And if he did; 2dly, whether the copyhold would pass to which the teftator had not been admitted at the time of his furrender to the ufe of his will. The laft point, with the |