s the common law against publication of "unpublished" matter,
and gives a copyright for 28 years. This act, however, excepts from its
provisions: (1) lectures of which notice has not been given two days
before their delivery to two justices of the peace living within 5 m. to
the place of delivery (an impracticable condition), and (2) lectures
delivered in universities and other public institutions. Sermons by
clergy of the established Church are believed to fall within this
exception. The leading cases are _Nicols_ v. _Pitman_, 1884, 26 Ch.D.
374, and _Caird_ v. _Sime_, 1887, 12 A.C. 326.

Private letters.

8. The writer of private letters sent to another person may in general
restrain their publication. It was urged in some of the cases that the
sender had abandoned his property in the letter by the act of sending;
but this was denied by Lord Hardwicke (_Pope_ v. _Curl_ in 1741), who
held that at most the receiver only might take some kind of joint
property in the letter along with the author. Judge Story, in the
American case of _Folsom_ v. _Marsh_, 2 Story (Amer.) 100, states the
law as follows: "The author of any letter or letters, and his
representatives, whether they are literary letters or letters of
business, possess the sole and exclusive copyright therein; and no
person, neither those to whom they are addressed, nor other persons,
have any right or authority to publish the same upon their own account
or for their own benefit." But there may be special occasions justifying
such publication. See also the English case of _Macmillan_ v. _Dent_
(1905).

Test of infringement.

9. The question of what is an infringement of copyright has been the
subject of much discussion. It was decided under the statute of 1709
that a repetition from memory was not a publication so as to be an
infringement of copyright. In the case of _Reade_ v. _Conquest_, 1861, 9
C.B., the same view was taken. The defendant had dramatized the
plaintiff's novel _It's Never too Late to Mend_, and the piece was
performed at his theatre. This was held to be no breach of copyright;
but the circulation of copies of a drama, so taken from a copyright
novel, whether gratuitously or for sale, is not allowed. Then again it
is often a difficult question to decide whether the alleged piratical
copyright does more than make that fair use of the original author's
materials which the law permits. It is not every act of borrowing
literary matter fro