The Sun. — London, England, 1822-11-29 00:00:00

kit `",s,k,%\l, hi. . ~,,,,,, ~ .- ,•- N, ~ • z o . 0 4 . ,4,),..- t. -,e, ... .... .1&.1.4.c., r-,-.- , -% -, #,-c - - --T.--1, 1i;---:... -----I.t' ' ,: 741,-7 ~..._ - 7 - IL, 0 i.6;-?4,4,,, '5,N,' ':'::. .14 OAV ' --;,.....t.., "0,..ii,,,,,,- ,` " , 7011t1 1 ,, .‘,",.,- \' re-01,4, , ,_. 'l" , •' _ ,_ ),,., F .. ~,,,, y, c ,,,,,:...: ,___—,__-- N , :r ,t,-,,,4,7, 1.A._,.._.‘,... , i\ .,, v.,...<7.,.. 0 7, ' Tinto ..4.icr T • . -ad ,/i SUN. ~~ A- 1 r " //2 , .( ' - i / _......e--- - -1,.., , C.O a/r, e 7, ,01.111 j NUMBER 9443. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1822. PRICE SEVEN PENCE .4D3IIHALTY-OFFICE, Oct. 30, 1822. NOTICE is hereby given, that a Session of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery, for the Trial o t J . Offences cumul at e d on th e Hi g h Seas, within the.Juriedic -4•441 o f the Admiralty of England, will be held at. Justice : 11, in the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, the 2d day of 2 ece vaernext, - at Eight o'Cloch in the Morning. This Day was published, in Bvc., price 4s. 6d., ,THE BRIDE'S T,RAGEDY.--- By THOMAS LOVELL BEDDOES, from me, for you have only to give notice to that effect at the sale.—lnjunction discharged with costs. ing the duties of the office; nor how long, if admitted, he would continue to perform them. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. STARICIE urged, that even if a party were selected without his consent, and after wards chose to fill the office, he might claim to be admitted with as much propriety as if he had originally sought to fill it. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after some further conversa tion on the subject, said, I have a strong opinion that this man damus is applied for in order to obtain the judgment of the Court on the mode of electing persons to fill this and other pro. fessorships, and not from a desire on the part of this individual to receive the emoluments of the office, and to discharge its duties ; and, therefore, if I were sitting here by myself, I should decline to hear it ; but some of my Learned Brothers think that we ought to hear it, and therefore the argument may proceed. but in a criminal information the Crown is the prosecwtor, and therefore only Counsel can move for it. Mr. Hunt.—But in this particular case— The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.. —There can be no failure or justice. We do not preclude you; you may prefer a bill of indictment before the Grand Jury. • • Mr. Justice 13EsT.—Or bring your action. Mr. Hunt—l have another case to bring.before your Lord., ships ; but at this late hour, when you have been fatigued with so long a sitting, I can scarcely press it. Mr. Justice BEST.—We will hear you move any thing in * civil cause. Of Pembroke College, Oxford. Printed for F. C. and J. ltivington, Waterloo-Place, Pall- Mall ; and St. Paul's Church-yard. VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, N0v.28. COPYRIGHT OF GIOVANNI IN LONDON. LO'VNDES v. DUNCOMBE. R OYAL HUMANE SOCIETY. PATRON-THE KING. In this case Mr. STUART moved on a former day for an in junction against the defendant, who is a bookseller, to restrain him•from publishing the songs and chorusses in a popular per formance called Giovanni in London, which 'had for a long time been performed at Drury-lane Theatre. The plaintiff, Mr. Lowndes (a bookseller in Bow-street), had purchased the copy-right of the piece from Mr. Moncrieff; the author, and had derived considerable profit from the sale, until the defen dant pirated the work, and published a cheaper edition, which considerably injured the plaintiff's interests.. , J. IP. CROKER. PRIZE MEDAL. In pursuance of the Will of the late ANTHONY FO THERGILL, M.D. this Society offers a PRIZE GOLD MEDAL, VALUE FIFTY GUINEAS, for the best Essay or Discovery, to be approved by the Society, " On the Prevention of Shipwreck, and the Preservation of Mr. Hunt.-4 scarcely know whether your Lordship will think this a civil cause. It is a complaint against one 'of your officers, Mr. Lushington, th e M a st er o f th e Crown-office, for extortion. YouraJordship may remember, that when I was a prisoner in IlchesTer gaol, I applied by my counsel, Mr. Chitty, for the redress of certain grievances which I was suffering. The High Sheriffof the County redressed these g,rieVances, and con sequently requested leave to withdraw my application on pay ment of costs. The costs were taxed by the Master, who made an error of ll in casting them up, against me. I was detained in Ilchester gaol for these costa---at least I was obliged to pay them before I left it, as a detainer was lodged against me. The LORD CHIEF JusTicE.—lf you complain of a mere error, you can only apply th a t th e Master may review his taxa.. tion. Ship wrecked Mariners." Essays to be sealed, and sent free of expense, addressed, to the Registrar' and Secretary of the Society, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, London, on or before the first day of September, 1823, and marked on the Outside—" Essay on the Preventign of Shipwreck and the Preservation of Shipwrecked Mariners." with a Motto or Devise to correspond with a like Motto or Device on a paper accompanying the same, likewise sealed, and enclosing the name and address of the Author. The Prize Essay will become the Property of the Society ; all the other Essays, with their corresponding papers will be returned, upon authenticated application, if made before the Ist day of September, 1824. By Order, JOHN MARTIN, M.D. Reg. and Sec. London, Ist October, 1822. . The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. TINDAL, Mr. STARKIE , and Mr. Amos, argued at considerable length in reply to the preliminary objections taken on a former day to the proceeding by mandamus—first, that the professorship of mineralogy was not an office of that permanent character and profit necessary to render it the subject of such interposition ; and second, that the proper remedy. was not in this Court, but by appeal to the Kin in Council. And first, they contended that the office, though not ea nomine of ancient date, was created by virtue of ancient laws, and pursuant to ancient practice. The first Professor ship established by the University was created by grace, in the year 1702, and was the Professorship of chymistry. The Pro fessorship of anatomy was established in 1707 ; that of botany in 1724; that of music soon after; and that of mineralogy in 1808, precisely in the form adopted on all previous occasions. These Professors were officers holding a high rank in the Uni versity; they had seats assigned them in church ; they had a distinguished place in all processions of the University ; they took precedence of the proctors; they had important duties to per form ; and they . took an oath for the due discharge of those duties. One of the duties which they were thus sworn to perform was to deliver lectures, for which they were enumerated by those who attended them : and thus the profits were not casual, but ' absolutely consequential on the performance of those functions which they were sworn to discharge. The Profesors were elected from time to time, by virtue, not merely of custom, but by a law of the Universty ; for before the grace could issue, the Caput must be unanimous in its approval. It must then he submitted to the two houses of the Senate successively, and sanctioned by a majority of each of these bodies. The professorships were all holden for life—at least they had always been so holden, except in one instance of' deprivation for neglect to perform dutes, and one instance of voluntary resignation on the part of the professor. Not only was the office created agree ably to ancient usage ; not only was it sanctioned by a law of the University solemnly passed; not only was it permanent in its nature ; but it was also necessarily and regularly productive of profit. The Professor had the control over a collection of minerals worth nearly 1,5001.; he received money from those who attended his lectures; and he enjoyed 1001. from the Crown, which Parliament, indeed, granted for the purpose, but which Parliament did not itself confer on him. If a mandamus would lie to restore a schoolmaster in every case where there was an endowment, how much more should it lie to admit the person who was chosen by the University to fill so high and honourable an office as that of one of its Professors ? On the second point, the Learned Counsel contended that there was no intelligible principle on which any complaint could be preferred to the King in Council. If the King were the visiter of the University, which was by no means clear in the sense contended for, he must visit, not by his Council, but by his Chancellor. There was, indeed, an instance of an appeal to the King in Coun cil-in the year 1669, respecting an University officer, and in 1728 and another reference of the kind was made ; but these isolated facts could not be drawn into precedents to prove a right, as it appeared that no objection was taken to the jurisdiction, and the parties might choose voluntarily to abide by the decision of that high tribunal. ' If the King were visiter of the University, in such a sense as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction, this would be a satisfactory return to the mandamus if' it should issue, and. the fact might be traversed on the return, and tried bye a Jury. The case of " the King v. the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge," 3 Burrow, 1647, was an authority expressly in point to show that. the Court would interfere by mandamus ; for in that case, which related to the High Steward of the Uni uersity, the objection was expressly taken, and overruled by Lord Mansfield. • The cases of " the King re the Commis sioners of the Bedford Level," 6 East, 221 ; " the King v. Barker," 3 Burrow, 1,156; " Er-parte Townsend," Sir T. Raymond, 69 ; the King Ts. the Bishop of London," 7 East, 32, also were severally applicable to the various parts of this case, and strengthened the argument that there was no objec tion to the interposition of the Court. In reports of cases in the time of Lord Hardwicke, it appeared that a marutartzta was granted to admit that a rcgius professor, whose very name would seem to point him out as the fit object of the visitation of his Majesty. On the whole, therefore, the Court would see nothing in the preliminary objections to prevent them from entering into the main argument on the mode of election, which it was highly important for the interests of the University to settle. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked the Solicitor General whether, supposing the Heads of the University had passed no grace for electing a successor to Dr. Clarke, he could contend that the Court might grant a mandamus to compel them to fill up the office. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, that this would cer tainly be more difficult. He referred to the mode in which the election of individuals to professorships had been notified, and read from a grace the words " deans Magister Banlces,"—n coincidence with the result of the late Cambridge election which excited considerable merriment in Court. Mr. SPENCE, for the defendant, submitted that the circuin stances of this case were such as rendered it impossible for the Court to grant an injunction. Ile should show that the copy right did not belong.totheplaintiff, but /o Mr. Eljiston. The Learned Counsel read an affidavit to the effect thdt Mr. Ellis ton had been heard to say that the copyright was his. Mr. STUART challenged Mr. Spence to prove any assign ment of the copyright to Mr. Elliston. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, it was impossible that he could grant an injunction against the defendant, unless his affidavit was satisfactorily answered ; and after some further discussion, the case was allowed to stand over until yesterday, to give the plaintiff time to prepare an answer. Mr. STUART, in bringing the case yesterday before his Ho nour, reminded him of the defence set up on the former occa sion by the defendant, who, in a loosely worded affidavit, swore that he printed his book, not from the plaintiff's copy, but from notes which he, the defendant, took at the theatre at the time of the performance of the piece, and that the difference of the two copies was in every page visible. The Learned Counsel was proceeding, when Mr. Hunt.—No, my Lard ; for these errors have happened singularly often —once in the case of the High Bailiff of West , - minster; once in a case before Mr. Justice Best, when a pound too much was charged me. Three times there have been errors, and all against poor me.—(ii laugh.) The Loan CHIEF .lIISTICt.—We are sorry for it; bat that can we do ? LAW INTELLIGENCE. _ ... Arr. Hunt.—l have long affidavits on the subject ; but I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The LORD CHIEF JusTICE.- - -Then you will not move now ? COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 23. JUDGMENT. PARKHITRST V. LOWTEIf. The VICE-UIIANCE'LLOR requested that he might be al lowed to read the affidavits himself, and also to look at the copies ,of the work, which were accordingly banded up to his Honour. Mr. Hunt.—Not in this case; but on the other question I wished to address your Lordship. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.— That has been decided already. Mr. Hunt—But only in my case, my Lord. The Lonn CHIEF Jtir4TloE.—Yes ; often before. Mr. Hunt.—l could show your Lordship many cases to the contrary. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Not now, o 1 the last day of term : another time we will hear you. Mr. Hunt.—l wish to ask your Lordship a question about an indictment which I preferred for a libel against a newspaper Editor named Stoddart : the bill was found, but I do not 'mow how the case stands. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—This was a demurrer against interrogatories put by the Master. There appears to me to be no ground for sustaining the demurrer, unless the witness should by his answers become liable to pains and penalties. If his answers should have that effect, he has already answered enough to make him liable. But it does not appear that he is liable to any pains and penalties by answering these interrogatories. I should have thought that it would be extremely discreet, how ever, in the plaintiffs, to new-model the interrogatories, because the one-tenth part would be sufficient, according to my view, to elicit all that is required. There are certainly difficulties which I do not know how to get rid of, but still I think that the ground taken in this demurrer cannot be maintained. With respect to the relevancy of a question, I do not think that it is proper in a witness to object on that ground,if the plaintifFdoes not object. At Nisi Pries, the Judge can see by the shape of the question, whether the answer would be relevant : here we cannot do so. You may here ask whether you are informed ; yet you may not be allowed to ask by whom you are informed. The latter question might here lead to material consequences. I cannot help again saying, that the questions ought to be re modelled. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—It has been long out of the paper : do you wish to re-enter it ? Mr. Ilunt.---As I said, I really do not k now w h a t h as b ecome of it. The case stood for trial, and was called; but when, I in.: formed your Lordship that I wished to open the case to tho Jury, you refused to permit them to be sworn. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Yes t on the same ground that you cannot move for a criminal information in person. Every criminal proceeding is at the suit of the King, and the prosecutor cannot interfere. (Other judgments were given, but of no general interest but to the parties.) Mr. Hunt.—l can show your Lordship cases— The LORD CutEr• JUSTICE.—At present, that is the rule of the Court. If you can by ancient cases show that rule tobe wrong, come prepared next term, and we will hear you. At present we can say no more. Mr. Hunt.—l am happy to see your Lordship so well after so long an absence, The Judges then left the Court. As it was the last day 'of term, they romained until all the motions were disposed of, which, with the application of Mr. Hunt, prolonged their sit , ting until half-past I o'clock. THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE. Mr. lion.xE said he was instructed to mention the case of, Lord Portsmouth, for the purpose of having a day fixed for hearing it. Any day his Lordship might fix upon, they would be ready : but unless a day were fixed, affidavits would be coming in by driblets without end, The LORD CIIANCELLOR.—I wish some day to be named, after which no affidavits shall be filed, excepting at the instance of the Court. irovc a nontl' Mr. SitAnwrm. suggested the next petition day after the next seal. The LOUD CitaxCELLOß.—And thereby shut out all peti tions which I ought to hear on that day, and at the same time not to be able to get through the Porsmouth cause. In the na ture of things, more time cannot be required for affidavits, this being the 28t1r of November. But until all the affidavits are filed and seen by me, I cannot know how to state the case to physicians. Mr. ilonigt thought they were in duty bound to pledge themselves, on his side, to the Court in this manner. If his Lordship mentioned a day after which no affidavit would be received, he (Mr. Horne) took it upon him to say that the order would be adhered to. They could not answer for the other side. The LORD CHANCELLOR.-It should be allowed, I think:, until the first day after the first seal. Will that be suffi cient time? Mr. Hon` E.—Quite. Mr. SirAtiwt i.t said, the day after the third seal might be appointed for hearing it, as his Lordship wished to see the affidavits before he instructed the medical mien. Mr. lloßNE•thought the day after the second seal would be better. The Loan CHANCELLOR.—This I shall do. I have di rected affidavits from time to time, till the first day after the first seal, after which no affidavit can be made, unless called for by the Court. After that day I will let you know what day may be finally fixed for the cause coming on. MONTGOMERY V. THE ASSIGNEES OF RUSSELL AND r o' ll 261 0 9 rtinh 3s 0 Is 64 ...' loo t ; tha' Rev• ifiiti SED UCED FARES, and UNEQUALLED TRAVELLING, To DOVER, DEAL, RAMSGATE, MARGATE, AND p`-'e-A,NTERB u ulct INSIDE COACHES, AND KEEP GOOD TIME, Nan By S. A, MOUNTAIN and Co. - "ACEN'S HEAD INN, SKINNER-STREET, SNOW HILL, LONDON. THE followin g LIGHT POST-COACHES, &c. set out from the above Inn:— $; 111 e ."Telegraph," DOVER, Deal; Ramsgate, Margate, L °ad - stairs, Canterbury, Fevershaw, and Sandwich, new C: 40 :. Coach—every Morning at a quarter past Seven o'Clock. - onsequence of the decided preference given to the above n . ch. tbe Proprietors are determined no expence shall be rjed to render it the first conveyance on tbe Kent road. s ii , cIK OMPTON, Chatham, Rochester, Gravesend, Stroud ,, ijla ' t c'gbourne, Rainhami and Ospringe, every Morning at a rr,teripast 7, at Reduc ed Fares. Royal Eclipse, FALMOUTH, Plymouth, Exeter, Budinio, Penryn, Ashburton, Totness, IVeyniouth, s o reliester, Dartmouth, and Salisbury, every morning at te ,u thr ough ' Hann ' on Axminster, Bridport, Blandford, o "uridge, Basingstoke, Hartford Bridge, Blackwater, and gshnt. ✓ • only Day Coach to WEYMOUTH, (driven through $lll.l Two Coachmen only), through Bagshot, Blackwater, c,, 4l gstoke, Overton Whitchurch, Andover, Woodyeats, o luraore, Salisbury, ' Woodford, and Dorchester, at Five c luck in the Morning. the" Union," SOUTHAMPTON, Lymington, Lyndhurst, inthester, Basingstoke, Hartford Bridge, Black water, anti ss sllol , New Four Inside Coach, every Morning at half , past Is e i ell l arrives at the Coach and Horses; Southampton , by w!'e. This is a most delightful Conveyance to the Isle of h o 'glit, Jersey, Guernsey, St. Maloes, Havre de Grace , Cher - &c.--. The Proprietors of the above Coach hove to - "Te a continuance of that support which has hitherto been .4Perionced since the commencement of the " Union." C The " Champion," a New light Day Coach to DOR tzesTER, in 13 hours only, through Bagshot, Blackwa h:.• Basingstoke, Overto, Whitchurch, Andover, Solis rYs Woodseats, Cashmo n re, and Blandtord, every Tnes ii!'-', Thursday, and Saturday, at Fire o'clock iii the morn &. Th e Proprietors of the above Coach are determined no ii , Pence shall be spared to render it the first conveyance on ' e- Western Road. h B ATH and BRISTOL Post-Coaches, through Chippen- Zl ll l' Caine, MarlborOugh, NeWbury, and Reading, every er n oon at one; arrive at Mr. May's, the Greyhound, Inn, and the London Tavern, ' Thomas-street, and Swan, w a " s tol,'early the next Morning.—Coaches to Wells, Bridge 4e,r, Taunton, and Plymouth. „ ni te " Umpire," a New LIVERPOOL Light Coach, only y ° , - * fl e &Night on the Road,. carrying Four Inside, sets put Daily '"'! 1 e; arrives at Liverpool next afternoon at Five, thiotigh W oburn ; t r Lathbury, Northampton, Welford, Lutterworth, F ' n ekley, Atherstone, Litchfield, Stone, Newcastle, Knuts. Warrington, and Prescot. S HREWSBURY, Wellington, and Shill-nal, Light Post c aich, every Afternoon.—Guartled. f i he"Union,"WEYMOUT; through Dorchester, Blond e" Salisbury, Andover, O v erton, Basingstoke, Hartford ridge, Bl ac k water, an d B ags h ot , new P os t C oac h, ever y Af ternoon.—Drivtn through with two Coachmen only.—The Packets from Weymouth to Guernsey, Jersey, Cherbourg - , St. Malue's, &c, every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon, it 'fix° o'Clock. BARNSTAPLE and Southmolton New Light Post Coach, "e cY Monday, W e d nes d a y, an d F r iday Mornings at 7 o'Clock. The " Rockingham," LEEDS light Post Coach, sees out 14-11 Afternoon at Four; and passes through Baldock, Big ,thtle, Eaton, Buckden, Stion, Wansford, Stamford, 11:,7 1 1ain, Grantham, Newark, lt Tuxford, Markham Moor, ti;,"Nd, Bawtry, Doncaster, and Ferrybridge, to tlse Golden Ly Leeds, next Afternoon, at Reduced Fares.—Lug abLgage and Packages only id per otwithstanding the ta,; l c• urtan Exedition of this Coach, ib i s allowed to be the af or ;' , agreeabl e and complete Public Conveyance on tint it 't _t l 'itoad, being unequalled by any other. Af t .aKBOWGATE and Ripon new Light Post Coach, every 6 e , noo n at Four, and Eight in the Morning. * l - 4 SGOl'l', Longtown, Gretna-green, Annan, Dumfries, 1 , Thornhill, Saliquhar-Kiln, Catimock, Kingswell, , 4 11 Part s of Scotland, a light four inside Post Coach daily. 3 " "C "Express," to YOR - ai, Scarborough, Whitby, Shields, itUnderland, Newcastle, & Edinburgh, a New light four-inside i n gj st Coach, with a Guard throughout ; sets out every Morn jr g Eight o'Clock, by way of Newark, Retford, Doncaster, !tr r Ybridge, Tadcaster, Darlington, Northallerton, Durham, • n „ ul Peth, and Berwick, and arrives at York the next Morn at 'rwelve o'Clock. Passengers finding themselves fa. a i l e d an the journey, may rest what time they please, h t hen proceed without any additional Fare. tit l ARLBOROUGH and Swindon, four-inside Day Coach, p r°ll lth Aldboorn, Reading, Lambourn, Purton, Lytlington ;h oa ry, Wootton Basset, Raisisbury, Hungerford, Newbury Maidenhead. h II , kI DGENORTII, Walsal, Shrewsbury, Salop, and Holy ebitu New Light Four Inside Coach, eve! y Afternoon. 1-I: s° sToN, Horncastle, Spalding, Petei borough, Stilton, s' i Tingdori, Caxton, Buckland, and Ware Day Coach, to u n k," s ,.. l - I Y, Louth, Grimsby, and Hull, Morning, at Six. The .Coach to Boston and H orncast le. • " Exptess," a New Light Four-inside Post Coach to 1-OLISLE, Penrith, and Whitehaven, goes with Four $ l . - , s es, and a Guard all the way, passes through Appleby, " lj gb, Bowes, Greta-biidge, Richmond, Catterick, 13o utuglibridge, Ferrybridge, Doncaster, Newark, Bawtry, ,P l lbam, Stamford, Greetham, Stilton, and Biggleswadr. • es °ut in the Morning, and performs the journey with the 'Mast facility. Passengers detained on the Road by busi fs: s er pleasure, have the peculiar advantage of their Seats li s l e " l > secured in the next Coach.—The only Coach to Car- KF.To Lancaster, Preston, Kirby-Lonsdale, Bolton, ern Oistirk, and Garstang Light Post Coaches, every " ni 'Th • to It o " Royal Express," New Light Four Inside Post Coach, at LI VERPOOL, Warrington, Prescot, Congleton, Lawton, o o :castle, Itudgly, Knutsford, Stone, Stafford, and Litch are , (only One Night on the Road), every Afternoon ives at the Saracen's Head inn, Dale.street, Liverpool, • 3a Evening - O f ternoon. an d KEFIELD Four inside Post-Coach, every Morning *l4 -I ESTER, Newport, Whitechurch, Tarporley, Nampt s-ftel; r\''l°l"° Nortliwich, and Middlewich Light Post-Coach, every ' ' 4 el e t ) ERLAND, Stockton, and Yarm Light Post Coach, Nlorning, to the George Inn, Sunderland. tu"'9llntain's " Express," to MANCHESTER, Winslow, ki`cli&leton, Newcastle, Walsal, Wolverhampton, and Knots- O n new FOur Inside Post-Coach, every Afternoon.--Only 3 - t right on the Road tyL 4 EFFIELD and Rotherham New Four-inside Post-Coach JC'Y Morning, called " The Express," and also " The ° c h i "Ish ,n g,"arn" at Four in the Afternoon. Royal Express," New BIRMINGHAM Light Post ge l s , sets out every Afternoon, carrying Four Inshie only 154 through Warwick, Leamington, Southato, Weedon, 4 n ly, Stoney-Stratford, and Towcester, to the Saracen's I .l ' l l, Bull -street, Birmingham, early the next Morning. e n h, e..." Express," a New Light Post Coach, to HULL, Lin- Aortheave, Howden, and Doncaster, every Morning at ale ° t ls ° 'Qlnc - k, to the Cross Keys, Market-place, Hull ; and Fik b e " Rockingham" in the Afternoon at Four o'Clock. tiv '''TFORD W- • 14 1 sd n and Cheshutit Coach, , ale, o. e o 1.6z1 rnl ng. Hah r_ ENHAM and Edmonton Coaches daily, at Eleven, P4st Two, Five, and Eight. - 1. 1 ,* * At Reduced Fares to Leeds, York, and Doncaster, ggaa • Fr iend' ° c andPackages at only 2d per pou6d. rel o 4* MOUNTAIN and Co. respectfully acquaint their .. ,a ny - v s an 4 the Public, that they wil Writ: be accountable for , 41 44 1 4, 41-c els , Passenger's Luggage, ngs,Plate, &v. of .Att Fire Pounds Value,g, lost, stolen, or damaged, tin , It: ,el,l l ltred e !te 4.i_. , • lan, the ifisurance paid accordingly, at. acen s Head Skinner-street, Snow-hill, London. OTHERS. Mr. Titian had yesterday obtained an injunction to restrain the defendants from selling by auction the goods of the bankrupts. Mr. HORNS implied this day t 8 have the injunction discharg ed.—There had been two commissions—the first on the 25th of October; the second, after a third partner had been disco vered, on the 7th of November. It was resolved to dispose of fancy articles in the silk trade as soon as possible by auction.— Liberty of view was given to persons who might be supposed desirous of purchasing. But a petition had been filed for an injunction to prevent the sale, on the ground that• a fourth part ner had been discovered. The Lonn CHANCELLOR.—I asked how long before the party who applied for the injunction had heard of the sale, and why they had not given notice ? Mr. Bligh, in answer, aid that they had heard only the day before that the advertise ments were but two days old. Mr. BLicH . (having just come into Court) said he was sur prised by an affidaVit having been filed to discharge the injunc tion, as he had received no notice. HortNE said a notice had been given. His Learned Friend probably meant brief. Mr. BLIGii hoped his Lordship would not allow the sale to go on. Mr. HORNE read the affidavit on which he moved. The sale had been industriously made known. Every arrangement had been made for the sale, and he hoped his Lordship would not prevent it. Mr. BLIGH begged to refer to the facts of the case. The assignees had only been chosen on Saturday last, and that very day they had determined on the sale for Wednesday at one o'clock. The goods were to be seen only by ticket. Was that like a fair public auction ? They were advertised to be sold at prime cost. Braganza shawls, stuffs, &c., were all advertised to be sold at prime coast. ow could they know that they were to be sold at prime cost? Yet this was the way in which 5,0001. worth of goods was to be disposed of. He had to state, too, that the goods had been removed, in collusion, to a con siderable amount. There were, too, four partners now dis covered. The usual mode in such a case was to supersede the commission against three, and to issue a new commission. Mr. HORNE was very glad that his Learned Friend had now got his brief. But his Lordship would see that the petition was here against the three Russels, not against Todd. As to the ticket, did his Learned Friend contend that all the rabble of London were to be admitted to see the Braganza shawls ? Under the former commission, it had been thought that the mode now proposed was the most beneficial mode of sale. The sale was made well known ; and though the advertisements had not been long published, there had been bills in the win dows long before. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I cannot—it would be rash in me to direct how the sale should be made; therefore, the as signees will sell as they think proper, at Their own peril. If it be the property of four, and not of three, notice can easily be given. Mr. HonNE.—Your Lordship will allow, costs in this case. The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I believe I must. If it be the property of four, you can (to Mr. Bligh) want no assistance Mr. STUART, when he proceeded, said, that in the affidavits of the plaintiff and the author, which had been handed up to his Honour, it was stated that permission had been given to Mr. Elliston to print the work for the theatre, but that the per mission had been given to no one else, and that the persons 'mentioned by the defendant as having printed the work besides himself were merely the printers for the theatre. The Learned .Counsel proceeded, for the purpose of commenting upon it, to read the affidavit of Mr. Elliston, which asserted that he was solely entitled to the-copyright of the songs and chorusses in dispute, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any right to publish them.—The deponent said that he had been possessed of the copyright of Don Giovanni since 1817, and that he had never disposed of it to any one. The author, he stated, was at that time in his employ to write dramatic pieces, and to do " other jobs" about the theatre. The de ponent further stated, that whilst the author was so in his em ploy, he had the full use of his talents to write dramatic pieces, and do " other jobs," as aforesaid, and gave him, besides his regular salary, divers sums ofmoney over and above by way of bonus, as a reward when the pieces were successful, and that it was whilst the author was so employed by the deponent that he wrote Don Giovanni, Monsieur Tonson, and several other pieces, which had been highly successful. The Learned Coun sel continued, that the author swore that he only gave Mr. Elliston the right of printing for the use of the theatre. The Vic E-CitANCE t,s,oit asked whether it was for the use of the performers in the theatre ? Mr. STUART said the piece was printed by Mr. Elliston for sale in the theatre, to assist the audience. The VICE-CRANCELLOP..—You do not, I suppose, claim the songs, which I perceive are old songs ? Mr. STUART said it was merely the words of the song which they claimed. The VICE-Cira.s:cEt.Lon.—Then 11Ir. Elliston swears, that it is he 4vho has the title to the copyright. You say that he has only a qualified right to print ? Mr.STUART.—It is very like a qualified right, your Honour. The VicE.CitaxoELLott said it was a qualified right. The parties must settle the right to the property between them, by an action in a C our t of Law, before he could interfere in this very serious question. Mr. SPENCE rose to request that his client should be allowed the costs ; when The VICE-CITANCELLOR asked what had been done in that case which the Lord Chancellor directed to be taken into a Court of Law to try the right of a person to take notes at a pub lic performance, and afterwards to publish them ? Mr. SPENCE said he really did not know what had become of that case, but certainly no decision had yet been made upon the question. The Lord Chancellor had recently decided in -a case similar to the present, that where permission was given by the owner of a copy-right to a second person to publish it, and a third copied it, he would not grant the owner an injunction to restrain the person copying. As the plaintiff had come into Court with this injunction, the Learned Counsel submitted, that upon the injunction being dismissed, the defendant ought certainly to have the costs. The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he would reserve the consi deration of the costs until it was decided in a Court of Law to whom the copyright belonged. Mr. SPENCE said his client was so very poor, that if he were allowed the profits of the publication for three years, it would not pay him the costs he had already incurred. The VICE-CitaxcELLon.—l am afraid if I were to read these songs through I should not be inclined to give the plaintiff any assistance, for from what I see of the character of them,' I do not think that they are such as are calculated to advance the morals of the country. Mr. STrAnT.—Your Honour, they have been licensed by the Lord Chamberlain.—[The latter observation of the Learn ed Counsel excited the risibility of the auditory.l The injunction was dismissed; each party paying their own costs. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28. GARD V. rORREST. The defendant in this case, a yeoman of the King's Body Guard, was arrested in the Palace Court. He applied to the Judge of that Court for his discharge, on the ground that the Court had no power to hold him to bail ; but his application did not succeed. He then put in bail, and removed the case into the Court of King's Bench, and was obliged, in order to bring the case before the Court, to put in and perfect bail. In the mean time a writ of inquiry was executed in the cause, and the damages estimated at 40/. On a fanner day Mr. Marryat obtained a rule to sheer cause why an exoneratur should not be entered on the bail-piece, on the ground that the defendant was privileged from arrest. Mr. EARLE now shewed cause against the rule on three grounds :—First, that the defendant being at large on bail was able to perform all his duties, and, consequently, there was no ground of inconvenience to the Crown or the public, on which alone the Court would interfere ; secondly, that as the defendant had voluntarily put in bail for,the purpose of bring ing the case before a higher tribunal, he could not now be per mitted to treat the proceedings as invalid; and, lastly, that having unnecessarily delayed the plaintiff' by removing the cause, he presented himself to the Court under circum stances which would induce them to refuse him summary relief on motion, and leave him to his writ of privilege. Mr. 'MArtitvaT, in support of the rule, urged that though the defendant was now at large, his bail might at any time ren der him, and thus prevent him from discharging his duties : and wherever a party on surrender would be entitled to his im mediate discharge, the Court would not compel him to render for the mere purpose of discharge. The defendant was com pelled to put in bail, in order to bring his case before the Cotta; and therefore he ought not to be concluded. The COURT said that their opinion was formed on the pecu liar circumstances of the case. They must presume that the Judge of the Palace Court had decided according to law, and therefore there was no sufficient reason for the removal of the cause. The putting in bail was therefore the voluntary act of the defendant, and the Court would not discharge them. They might ask the consent of the Chamberlain to render him, and if the consent was granted, the render would be discharged with costs. THE RING v. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVER- SITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Mr. Sor.rclToß-GENERAL. produced the affidavit of Mr. Jephson, stating, thathe was a candidate for the office of Pro fessor of Mineralogy, and' that he now was desirous of being admitted to the office, and of performing its duties. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that the affidavit did not state that Mr. Jephson had always been desirous of eNecut- The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that it would be a great deal to contend that because it was thought convenient at one period to appoint a professor for the cultivation of a parti culaf science, the University must always continue the professor whether convenient or not. Suppose it should be found, that the study of mineralogy was so attractive as to engross too much of the time and attention of the students, might not the University discontinue the professorship? Mr. Justice BAY ; and the same argument seems to prove that th 6 appointment of an individual cannot properly be for life? The Judges consulted for a few minutes, after which The LORD CIIIEF JusTicE said, it will be impossible for us to devote more time to-day to this case ; therefore let the nile be enlarged till the next term. In the meantime, we will con sider of the preliminary objections, and if we think that they do not preclude us from proceeding, we will hear further argu ment on the mode of election. THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF ELLWALD, V. O'BRIEIi. Mr. CHITTY begged leave to mention this case, in which the defendant had been found guilty on a criminal informa tion for sending a challenge to the prosecutor, Mr. Ell wald, and posting him at the Royal Exchange. The prose cutor had intended to bring him up for judgment; but he bad made an apology so ample, that, with the sanction of their Lordships, he would proceed no further. Mr. O'Brien had sent a letter to Mr. Ellwald, acknowledging that he had acted under the influence of irritated feelings—that he had since discovered that his irritation was entirely groundless— that be begged to make as ample an apology as one gentleman could make to another—and that he was willing to pay all costs of the prosecution, which Mr. Ellwald had kindly consented to withdraw. Under these circumstances, he (31r. Chitty would move that the defendant might_ be permitted, to go bre the Master, who would tax the costs, instead of coming up for judg . ment. The CoustT sig,nifietl their acquiescence in this course of ~proc eeding. MR. HENRY HUNT. As the Judges were rising to quit the Court, at a quarter past 7 o'clock, Mr. Henry Hunt rose on the floor, and began to ad dress them. Mr. Justice BATLEY.—What is it you move, Mr. Hunt ? Mr. Hunt.—l wish to move against one of the officers —no, not one of the officers, but a gentleman of your Lordship's Court, Mr. Charles:Frederick Williams. - I wish to ask your Lordships that he may be criminally prosecuted for insulting me, and trying to provoke meto fight a duel, which would have forfeited my recognizances for good behaviour. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—That is a motion for a cri minal information, and must be made by Counsel. Mr. Hunt.—l hope your Lordship will not drive me to Counsel in this case. I have heard of " set a thief to catch a thief ;" but I am afraid it will not do to set a barrister to catch a barrister. • _ _ Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The same attempt has been for merly made, and the Court decided against it. The distinction is this—every man has a right to be heart' in his own cause; COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 28. ( Sittings in Banco.) • POST HORSE DUTY. DOWSE V. GARETT. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, the farmer of the post horse duties for the County of 'Warwick, against the defendant, ftr! innkeeper at Kington, under the following circumstances :-._The defendant • had entered into a contract with the person named NiThyatt, to furnish him with two additional horses to assist in drawing a stage coach up Edgehill, on the road from Kington to Banbury, for which he Was to the a sum of one guinea per week, and not to be paid speci fically for the distance on which the horses were employed. The horses furnished were sometimes those used by the defendant as post horses, and sometimes his cart horses, according as it suited his convenience. The coach was a public stage coach, drawn by four horses and carried the mail. Without the as sistance of these additional horses the coach could not have reached its destination in the time limited by the proprietors. The question for the Court was, whether, under these circum stances. the horses could be considered post horses, so as to render the defendant liable to a duty on them, under the provi sions of the different post horse duty Acts ? This question arose on a case reserved at the trial, which took place at the Assizes for Warwickshire, when the plaintiff had a verdict by consent. Mr. Serjeant LENS, for the plaintiff, insisted that this was a letting to hire for travelling, within the words of the 57th G. 111. c. 59, s. Di, and that the horses must be considered as the objects of the post horse duty, which attached on such a hiring. Mr. Serjeant LAWES contended, that the horses were not let to hire for travelling within the meaning of the different acts, inasmuch as they only assisted the other horses for a very short distance, on account of the steepness of the hill over which the carriage was to be drawn. The coach was already liable to a particular duty applicable to that mode of travelling, and no other duty could be fairly superadded to it. The horses were not hired to go a mile or other specific distance, and the defend ant was not paid for their service as for the service of post horses, at a certain rate for a certain distance, but received a stipulated sum per week. Mr. Justice PARK on this day delivered the judgment of-the the trial, he aotr t said, hoteh e w dre li f e oe n nf dt the n i e s t p c w a oa s ss e t il a ao i br r i sl e ee b (ti c on fo t ypr acts,eayt Court. After statin g th e c i rcumstances of the case, reserved at t i e C o o rd u ub r t t y; ti under ne e d - 4 a e T s ; s a o rgu me ed On th e George 111, which rendered horses let to hire for travelling without saying " Post," liable to duty. We do not found our, judgment upon those chums, which have been mentioned, as we think they do not apply to the present case, post-travelling being generally understood to be travelling by ,an individu a l i n a coach or chaise with post hor ses . By the 44th Geo. 111, the distinction is taken as to stage coaches, which are rated accord ing to the number of the pageengers they carry. By the pre sent argument it is contended, that though the coach might be drawn by six, eight, or ten horses, without any additional charge, if they went the whole journey, or if they belonged to the proprietor of the coach, yet, that as they are let to hire by a person who has no interest in the coach, he must pay the duty. But this is arguing in a circle, for if the owner of these ho: ses is to pay a duty in respect of their hiring, he cannot let them on the same terms to the coach proprietor, who will therefore . be obliged to make a greater demand on his passengers, and thus the charge will ultimately fall on the public. We are unani mously of opinion, that the horses used in this case have not been used as post horses, nor do they come within the descrip tion in any of the Statutes, which render horses so let to hire liable to the duty as post-horses. 'We therefore think the de fendant is not liable to the present demand, and a nonsuit must consequently be entered. Drt. JAMES CAssELs.—ln our Monday's pub lication, We announced the decease of Dr. James Cassels, phy sician at Lancaster. Dr. Cassels, was a n dive of Leith. In early life he settled at Lancaster, where his abilities, jolt ed to his urbanity of manners, soon introduced him to extensive practice, and to the friendship and intimacy of the principal inhabitants. He was author of many fugitive pieces (chiefly of a sober cast), which are to be found among the fleeting publi cations of the day; his principal work, and one of very exten sive circulation, is a popular treatise on the " Diseases Of See - men." This highly important subject, which has been somewhat overlooked by great medical authorities, is treated by Dr, Cassels in a plain and distinct manner; th e style is nervous and pointed, and the treatise, besides much highly useful medical ink . mation, contains many excellent exhortations and observations on the moral conduct of seamen, a like honourable to the au thor's heart and head. He lived respected and died lamented by the rich and by the poor.—( Edinburgh Courant, Nov. 25.) ORTHOGRAPIIY.—There appears on the front of a potatoe-warehouse, in one of the principal streets of South. Shields, a large sign-board, on which is the following inscrip tion:—" HILLS TEATT WARE-HOUSE." • •~