The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-04-28 00:00:00

Cited; toe far ife Would go Tong with him, if it
was to be pobliely recited fo► hire, but that would
noT deprive any person f►mn reigigg it to his
friend& He could see no ditterunftletween thilt
rase ind the farce of X, Y, Z.
The Loon enaircitu.oft.—" Was that farce

vise published ?"
Mr. Elliston—" Never.*
Mr. SNADWICLL, in continnation, said, there was
a case reported in Amish?, of the farce oT 1.013.•111-.
le-Mode, where some person of happy memory com-
mitted it to paper. and was about to publish it,
until the Court interfered ; and lately there was •
ease where the eateetainintetts of Mr. Mathews were
taken down in short head. and were about to be
published, where the Coon also interfered. Then
he would ask. was not the recital in the first in.
stance • publication ? and .if it was, ao ,injunction
having been granted in there eases was a precedent
for continuing the present injunction. The cases
of Cohisent and Warren, and Miller and Warren.
were in point ; for the Court had always used its
jurisclictiso over the right of property independent
or the Statute. Bat if his Learned Friends had by
their suggestions created any doubt in his Lord-
ship s as to the propriety of continuing the
injunction, he was convinced that he would not die•
solve it without first sending the questions to be
tried by • CourS .of Law. •
The Ulan CSANCELT.OII—" The difficulty ip
sending it to a Colin of Law is as to what ought to'
• fa, done before the decision of the Court below is
known; that is, whether the Defendant in the mere
time ought or ought not to he restrained from per-
- forniing the tragedy."
Mr. SNADWDI.I. said, if the Defendant was re- ,
strained from performing, it could not be demi.
mental to him, es he could not have been-at much-
expense in bringing it out, as the book was only'
published on Saturday morning last, end his retires
sentation of the tragedy took place on Wednesday;,
it was impossible that he could have incurred soy
expense to entitle him to continue the performettee.
while the question was pending in a Court of Law.
The LORD CHANCELLoa observed, that he mere-
ly threw it out as a suggestion, whether it would
not be fur the benefit of the smiles that a case
should be submitted to the Court of King's Bench
whether an actiou would lie, and if it would, in
what form it ought to he brought ; thst was to say,
whether an action under the circumstances would
.or would not lay.
The ATIONNIT-GIINNIAL said, that although
the tragedy was only published on Saturday, it had
been advertised for • length of nine, and the story
was known, and tbe country where it was laid in,
• -and for which Mr. Miami) bad been at considerable
expense in providing costume appropriate fur the
performers, which ,ought to entitle him to play the
tragedy during the time the question was pending
in a Court below.
Mr. SHADWELL said, if Mr. Elliston would make
a short affidavit that he, or any person belonging to
him, was in possession f the tragedy before Satur-
day morning last, he would not object, on the part
'of Isis client, that he should perform the play
during the interval of the question being tried iu a
Court or Law.
The Loan CHANCELLOII—" The difficulty is
is. that von cannot treat it as if it was a
case of orient termini's • pros, nor nacre an account of
what had been sold might have bees kept peudisig
u trial at law ; bet here it can only be determined
by leaving it to • third party to say what damage
Lad been sustained. However, in this case, if the
parties are determined that I shall decide, I will
do an without looking to whether I have or have
Not their approbation ; for if I should be of opi-
• vion that a case aught to be sent to the Court of
• Hitig's Bench, or that it should go to a Jury, the
,party obtaining the injunctioselaturgelorthwith pro..
ceed. I will have my mind made:op on the ebb-
ject by to-morrow morning, and if the parties nil
scud to my lionise at one o'clock, it she
meted to them."—Judgment postponed.
COURT OF UM'S BENCH, Wiensterten,
FRISAY, Aratt.27.
•
DAVY v. 1111TORD, DIA. AND 01111113.
•
This was an action for false imprisonment whit
•was tried before Mr. Justice Bayley, at the Lon
dons Sittings before last Term. The Plaintill
against whom a commission of bankrupt ,het
issued, was committed to Newgate by she Defied.
ants (Commissioners of Bankrupts) for Jileges
faetursly answering the questions of the Co.
stonier ou being examined before them. The Jo/
,!nand a verdict for the Paintiff—dawagra 2001.4
Mr. Scarlett hind last Tenn obtained a rule to spew
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and
a nonsuit entered.
Mr. ADoLPHUS Dow appeared to support the
verdict. He contended that, by the 16th section of
the statute sth Geo. 11. there were but three poinu
clerf the bankrupt's conduct for which the Commis-
, raiment had power to COMMA hit If be refused to
answer ; 2d, If his answers were not satisfactory to
them ; or, lastly; If be should refuse to signs or
subscribe his answers. The fourth section of the
same Act contained the duty of the bankrupt. god
the Commissioners could not, 'Tier extorting front
the Plaintiff in this case a promise to do something
more than he was requited to do by the Act (viz.
to furnish a balance slwet) wrest the nou-perloras-
auce of that promise into a breach of the second
point of the 16th section. The Learned Couusel
went into a minute review of the examivation of the.;
Judi August, 1819 (on which day the commitment,'
to Newgate took place), and contended that this',
answers given on that day were such as ought to
have bran satisfactory to the Commissioner,. slide
that, in fact, the only ground of comuiittuent was
the illegal one of the non-production of the balance '
sheet by the Plaintiff, sererality to his promise ou
si former examinatinit. The case of Stanley God-
dard, which had been teferred to, was beard before ,
the Lord Chaucellor ins November 1819. The
report was not in print, but from a usauuscript
avhirb he had been favoured with, a view of it ap.
peered. in that case the bankrupt was committed
on a series of questions, among which certainly a
balance sheet was mentioned, but that did !KA
appear to be the only ground of commitment, and
could not, therefote, be brought se an authority iu
the present case.
Mr. Pot.encet followed on the same side.
Mr. MARltifierr, for the Defendants, contended
alum the bankrupt was not committed to prison fur
' tl • ••'41,3 4,10 'lass nit id! 0401:511 L. 4,