WELLINGTON.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3049, 22 November 1878, Page 1

WELLINGTON.

Thursday.. F. W. Teschemaker, M. H. S. for Gladstone, died here to-day-of typhoid fever. . The Chronicle to-night says the organisation of the Land Tax: Department ;s proving, we understand^ a work of considerable magnitude, the time required to complete the valuation being limited, and the finding of qualified men as valuers being difficult. It is intended to divide the colony into six districts—three in each island; commencing in the North the first district will be, Auckland, the second Hawke's ' Bay, including : the County of Cook;, the third Wellington, ' includingTaranaki. In the South thefirst : will. be Nelson, including .Marlborough; second Canterbury, including Westland; third.Otago, .including Southland 'and Stewart's Island. 1 Each of these distrusts will be in charge of a Sub-Commissioner. Over 17,000 passengers were carried on the tramway last week. 1 • " ■""- In order the better to ke^ep down, the dust the city will be watered with a mixture of fresh and salt water.

The Post states that Sir Geo.'Grey has no present intention of visiting the Australian Colonies, New South Wales or Victoria, on a semi-official tour. In the Court of, Appeal- to-day Messrs Holt and McCarthy s action against •Webb, of the Poverty Bay Standard, for "piracy'of telegrams, came on for argument on a demurrer by defendant^ to plaintiffs' declaration. The demurrer .had been removed .by consent from the Court in Banco. The Attorney-General appeared in support of'the demurrer* Mr Travers and Mr Edwards for the Agency. The s points for' argument were:—That there was not' equity entitling plaintiffs to an injunction, or to any other equitable relief; that the reprinting from any newspaper of news published in such newspaper is not an actionable wrong; that there is no copyright in news published in a newspaper.. The Attorney-General contended that the right to: restrict publication exists only in England, by .statute; that ..there is no oommon right in articles once published. If telegrams were held to be copyright, so would all other matter in a newspaper. In support Mr Travers cited authorities. The Melbourne Argus cases, on which the other side rely, would not apply here, because the Argus was registered under a clause in the Victorian (not in the English), law, which extended the protection .to copyright of newspapers' na «ues. . If one newspaper had taken proceedii?** against another, then the question of «opyrigbt might have arisen, but.it did'ntff »ri(i e ln v thl» c*>e- But supposing it did a;™* h* ?bo^ "V the statute law only reu 4«ccd t the common law, and sc* did not C re **• n«h. tß ',buJ merely regulated those whion ex»«fced at common law, and if there was no ■tatute in New Zealand then the common '** , operated. , However, his contention rr&f i that plaintiffs had a right of property in their telegrams just, as a merchant had a right of- property in merchandise, and that any' one publishing the telegrams without the license of the Press Agency infringed the law and became liable to plaintiffs. Mr Edwards followed on the lime side., Within - the meaning of the Act a • newspaper was a book, and the authors of these telegrams, which position all held in law, had the same redress tigainst piracy as any author of a book had against persons who published it for their own profit without reference to the author. He also contended that in the absence of statute law common law must operate. Mr Stout, in reply, said, admitting a newspaper was a book, the remedy was not an injunction but a suit for damages after publication. The" Court took time to consider its decision.