FRIENDLY ACTION

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 13, 16 July 1934, Page 11

FRIENDLY ACTION

THE DICKENS FAMILY

"LIFE OF OUR, LORD"

EIGHTS TO PROMTS

[Fronr "The Post's' Representative.) LONDON, June S.

A ease has been heard this week, before Mr. Justice Bennett, in the Chancery Division, and judgment lias been reserved, to determine the ownership of the copyright of Charles Dickens' "Life of Our Lord."

The parties to the ease arc Lady Marie, Therese Louise Dickens, widow of- Sir Henry Fielding Dickens, K.C., the novelist's son, and seven members of the family, who claimed to share in the proceedsof the sale of the copyright. The ' manuscript, which had been ]eft under the will o£ Georgina Hogarth, sister-in-law of - Charles Dickens, to Sir Henry Dickens, and' b'e'i queathed .by him in turn to Lady Dickens,, has not itself been sold, and ■was ■ described as immensely valuable. The case is a friendly action initiated by Lady Dickens, as personal representative of .the late Charles Dickens in order' to ascertain from the Court the; parties who are entitled to benefit by "the recent sale of the' copyright in "The Life of Our Lord." They point out that a heading. "Dickens Family Dispute" is calculated, in default of this explanation, to lead people to believe that there is an acrimonious dispute between members of the family as to their respective lights/ whereas such is not thecase. s

A PBIVATE PAPER,

Those whbjclaini,to '-bo': interested,' in the estate of Georgina Hogarth and in the residue under tho will of Charles Dickers are:-r-Enid Henrietta Mary Hawkesley, Henry Charles Dickens*, Gerald Louis CbaTles Dickens, Olive Nina Shuckburgh, Elaine Simone Waley, Philip Charles-Dickens, and Ethel Dickens • (representing the residuary legatees).- '.-. •■- .: . :

Mr.., Croom Johnson, K.C., for tho members of:thefaniily interested, sub-. mitted.>:-:thatj; by his will, Charles Dickens, drew a distinction. between the manuscripts of published works and other papers he possessed. This was a private paper, prepared for, family use.1 ' The author did not desire publication. . ~'■

Mr. Evershed, K.C. (for Miss, Ethel Dickens)' Siibniitted "that it was only private in the sense that'it was never published ,to the wo^ld. But it was aot pr/epar6d primarily for the author's own "satisfaction. It was prepared for the instruction of his. children;

Mr. Justice Bennett, giving judgment, held that the book was a private paper and passed to Georgina Hogarth. U3IT to SIR HENRY. DICKENS.

'-.The Court 'then considered the questiori_ of copyright;. .... Mr. Croom Johnson argued that the owners of the manuscript became entitled to/the copyright. There was nothing in the will to limit their right. Mr. Justice Bennett:' Georgina Hogarth, bequeathed thef-manuscript:, to Sir Henry Dickens?

Mr. Croom Johnson: Yes. Mr. Justice Bennett: And he- has disposed of it by his will?

Mr. Croom Johnson: Yes.

Mr. Croom Johnson,, continuing his argument on the'question of the devolution of the copyright, said that it was.; $leai; from the. will that Miss Hogarth.-was a,person in whoni the testator hact implicit.cohfidence. Tlye'. right to. r^stjaj,nj:.-puhlicatipn ~pf.ithe^ap.u--sseript, was. in .her" during her lifetime. Where private jiapeTs- were given, tp an individualthe right to restrain, pub'; lication must go "with; that gift. If the right-to■rTcstraia;,publication were .given to someone value of the gift of the manuscript might be seriously s cut down. ■ The owner of., the manuse'ripty'liaving the, right of publication . 'by virtue of proprietor ship, was entitled at-common law to protect that; light if it. were invaded. The gift by_.the..will : was:-a "gift. of. the -manuscript, .with all the consequences.