The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-08 00:00:00

LAW NOTICES.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

BLVORZ Sill LORD CAANCIiLLOi. IN ' ----------- NAIL. TUN DAY,

AT TIN.
Es-parte Braithwaite, lunatic petition, per order.
Powell r. &intuit, exceptions, per order
Cate Petitions.
Attorney-Generril v.
Ruch:•ter
Green v. Thompion
In re F.lvr two of Co-
roner of Stafford
Eilward.. v. Rokeby
Con.t r. Harem
We'.t v. Heath, appeal
petition
Bowe. r. Strothahone,
two petition.
Lunette Petitions.
In re Webb
Frank, two do.
Barstow

Waters r. Taylor, part

heard
Cowell v. Sikes, appeal
petition
Cullen v. Trlmbey
Knowles v. Giqin
Benham v. Strsthiaore
Miller v. Elkins, ap.

Riri and v. Cluivnbers,
petition and demur.
ntkinv V. Manta

iieinifv Mon,on
Brummel V. 11.Pherscn
Numptron V. Italians
Varner v. Deacon

w7.lthockm, ap-
peal petition

peal petition
In re Ashby.de.ha
touch School

In re Turner, four pe-
tition..

In re Pearmn
I.t.ord Portsenoutlt
Jenkins
Jones, two do.

Willett,threedo,
Mode
Wharton

Adam
Wel.h
New Petitinis,—ln re,
Lyttelt.lo
Craven, two petitions
I 1 n,ls
'iownihcod
StOrp
Adam
!Vat Cathie
Bateman
Barlow
Irtdale, two petitions
Taylor, two petitions
111111 con
Alcbin
Sluntweit, two pet.
Cantwell
' flonstonn
Yorks

ittnehen
Mirktieton, tem pet.
Nicholas
12 °win
Arundell
Smith

Show
Jame,
white
Stef,henaon
WI o:I aley
Plocke
H I nde, two petitions
Whleler
?owlcr
Cooke
Front ott
Ile(Iota
Buckle
Ntchotto
Smith

Baker
Willett
rwinenn, two petit ions
Turner, three petitions
Craven
Bowman

Smyth, two ptthlona
Elton, two petitions

CITANCELLOR'S COURT.
lAPICIt LLO R. IN LINCOLN'S INN, TNIS D•r,
WA LF-PAST TEN.
Shadwell v. Crourineton, petition, per order.
Bankrupt Petitiong.—Exparte.
• Moore re Jones Modgkinson re Phene
Bosworth, re Bartlett I Gregory re Richard*
Prentis re Pigram Haldy re Hedy
Stiles re Elwell Window re Rowe
Leech re Stalker Mathew re Cooper
Ainswolth re Slospqoo Walker re M'Leod
Diekenaon re Hanby Darwin re Darwin
Tomlinson re Pare Portlock re Blowers
Martin re !taster Drown re Holman
Shalteshaft re Kemp- Watts re Lucks
lon It eyden re Heydeu
Birrill re Moore 11.1.4e1l re Jfllls
Lath,w re Bysh White re Turnbull.
Stephenson re Stalker

MOMS

novlll re Evan
Sledger re Morley
Foote re Brim!ley

(;nwrr re Wllllairisna
Ji Ilrington re I.lttel
Karenher re Steam

Crlrriondt re Turner
Mills re Burgess
Preen re Starkey
Aleereock re Colston
Perkins re Weblter
Whittent,try re %%lit-

tenbury
Fawn re Nantes

The Master of the Rol
lon*, by con-ent, on S
Canoes, Further Dlrec
NO o'clock on Friday of

not,L3*COURT.
Ms will hear Cauues, Furtl
Saturday next, at nine in I
etions, and Petitions, mu
lest.

ther Directions, and Pa
the morning.

ist be set down before

- - -
LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MoaroAr, AVOUST 7.
STEAD V. KAYE AND FRESIITIFI.D.

Mr. Hamill-. this morning stated to his Lordship that this ease
had been appointed to be further heard this morning ; but as his
Lordship wished to be furnished with affidavits of some prelikasional
gentlemen, as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the
charges, he had to ask that the mutter might be further postponed,
as the making affidavits of this nature was a task Solicitors were
not very ready to enter upon.
The Loan Cu ANCELLon observed, Solieitnrs ought neither to
Le very ready or very unwilling to make affidavits of this kind, for
the furtherance of the justice of the country.
Mr.sxrcu•r Said he thought it would be better for those gen-
, tlemen who had made affidavits on the part of Messrs. Kaye and
Freshheld, to look into the bills of costs, upon being paid their
professional charges, and the a make affidavits cs to able they
thought of the different items complained of.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he could not tax a Solicitor's
bill. unless it was shown that the charges were of such a nature
as his (the Solicitor's ) duty to his client ought to have prevented
him from making. He considered it the duty of Solicitors to give
their evidence, if the Court required it. though they might be
doing very right in waiting for infornaation from the Coutt that
dig did in require it.
The case accordingly stands over to a future day.
The LORD CHANCELLOR postponed the judgment in Coast v.
Harris, till to-morrow.

IAWXAW a. TEna.

The Loan Cie 4WCRL LOR having ititinoced his intention of giv-
ing judgment in this important, and, in some of its features, novel,
literary question, the Court was excessively crowded.
His Lordship ohs reed, that the case came before him on a
motion made by the p opriet as of the Entor/opodia Nefropofitast ,e
roe an injunction to prevent the publication of a work called the
Loudon Enryclop,rdlq, on the ground of piracy. The arguments
had occupied the whole of Friday and Satuaday, and had
been heard with that attention which a case of so mitch
importance required. In the first part of the plaintiffs' ease, it had
been intimated that there was that in the superficial aspect and title
of the two hooks which was calculated to induce persons to suppose
that the defendant's was a smaller edition of the plaintiff's work.
Now, it was true, such an external imitation, when clearly made
out, would furnish a ground op which the Court would grant an
injunction, but in the ptesent Maumee he could not say that he saw
so strong a resemblance as to justify him in so doing. An objection
had been raised by the defendant's Counsel to the motion, on the
ground that the plaintiff' had shown, no title to the work for which
he sought protection, and Mr. Solicitor-General in reply had stated,
that he would, if the Court wished it, file an :affidavit of the feet,
but that he would not advise his respectable clients to such a
eoursc, merely upon the representation of Counsel. The history
of the work seemed to be as fellows : —lt had originally been pub-
lished by 3:r. Fenner, and formed the joint property of that gentle-
man and Mr. Curtis, and Miss Richardson. On the bankruptcy of
Mr. Fenner, his share In the property passed to the assignees for
the benefit of creditors. No written acknowledgment of this trans-
fer had been produced, nor did he think it necessary in such trans-
actions, that any written title should be given. It was sufficient
that the bankrupt gave up the full and unreserved possession of his
interest in the work. The one-third share of Mr. Curtis had been
purchased by 31r. Fenner, previous to the bankruptcy, and a bond
for three thousand pounds given for the same, payable within
twelve months after presentation. Unfortunately for Mr. Curtis,
no presentation had been made till after the bankruptcy, and
the Commissioners had therefore rejected the proof of his claim.
Still, however, the property did not revert to Mr. Curtis, but
patted, together with the one-third originally possessed by Mr.
Fenner, to the assignees. This, certainly, was very hard upon
Mr. Curtis, but atilt persons are bound to abide by their agree-
menet, and he did not see any way in which lie could have been
relieved from it. They thus had the proprietors of two-thirds of
the property before the Court as applicants, and in a case of this
kind, in which the expenses were of necessity very heavy on
both sides, he did not see that it was indispensable that
proof should be given of the ownership of the other third, enough
having been already shown to give the plaintiffs an interest in
the motion. Another objection had been raised on the ground
of delay, but this he considered was sufficiently answered by the
time that it required to collate the two works, and collect together
the proofs which were to form the ground-work of this application.
It was necesotry that it should be ascertained bow much of the
larger work had been infused into the smaller one. In forming his
judgment in this important case, he had carefully availed himself
or the interval since Saturday in examining into the principles on
which the Court had hitherto decided questions of this kind, and
he found that in the case of Miller v. 'Taylor, it had long been re-
cognized that an injunction might issue against a part of a work.
In exercising this power, the Court would take into consideration
all the circumstances connected with the property in question, and
these, perhaps, would never be alike in any two cases of this kind.
Thus the reviewing of a work might be made a colourable pretext
ror its piracy, and the Court, in deciding this point, would take
into account the length and manner in which the extracts were
made, and would endeavour to ascertain whether they were made
with a hono fide intention or not. The same principle would apply
to the work'before him i and here he could not but observe that one
of the articles, that on Balance, in the defendant's work, appeared
to be an entire treatise. copied out of the other work. It had been
contendtd by the defendant that there could be no monopoly of
science, and that therefore he was entitled to make reference to the
plaintiff's lock ; but this was not the question—it wan, are you
publishing your own work, or are you publishing partly your own
work, and partly mine? The consideration is, what quantity. of
matter are you thus obtaining without the labour and application,
and exercise of talent, necessary to make it sour own ? and here the
question of quantity *as a very important one. In the case of a pi-
racy of Pah rson'aßoa of Roads, the appearance of its errors of press
in the work applied against was held to lie a sufficient proof of the
piracy : and although in this case the character of the books was
different, still the Fame kind of proof would apply. He took it
that the same blunders' being to be found in many parts of the
books before him, formed such a prisms fade evidence of piracy as
to justify him in concluding, th at not only those parts were pi-
rated, but also all others which were similar in their matter and
arrangement. The question then remained, whether he should
grant an injunction, as against all the parts which were marked as
parades. or whether, as the defendant had urged that he had rot
had sufficient time to ascertain whether some of the parts were
not erroneously marked, he should afford him till the end of that
week, for the purpose of making an adidavit on that point. He
was inclined to the latter course, if Mr. Home felt disposed to
make an affidavit. If not, he knew what he should have to do.
Mr. Hon we begged till to-morrow, to consider the question.
The Coo Ire assented; and thus the matter rests for the
present-

NEWET V. 1316(7.1.

_
l' ththate a
name Mr. HEALD presented a petition in this case, against the Re.
settlement
emnfent hie
s'Ahoulasitder,bl:yln watille u i iCI had
ayl(3:tnen olrdaderyel of
g
Harriet Headland, and her issue. It appeared, from the statement
ftreeihld
yooung lady had a fortune of a year,
arising.
. out tles
property, and that in 1811 her mother
ooltd, sometha t
was appointed her guardian, by the order of this Court. After
the death of her mother, which happened soon afterwards, and
before another guardian had been appoir:ted, a young gentleman
of the name of Biggs, the defendant in this cause, ran- away wilt,
and married her at Orme-green, she being then not more than
sixteen years of age. On the return of the young couple to