The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-22 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, SATVIDAT, Nov 20.

roLRY AND TLAIrcHT V. LOGICD/Ca.
34r. AGAR moved for an injonctioo to restrain the defendant,
.Lowndes, turn publishing and selling • play, written by William
kt•aley, with tsie title of a play, which the plaintiff, Mr. Planche,
tad altered and adapted for representation from Rowley's comedy,
celled *• A Wonder; or, a Homan Never 'text." The fact was,
teat the defendant had printed the uld play with the title of the
y!sintitfs, name!y '• A Woman Never I eat ; or the Widow of
I.:lndult." Uncle; this title 'Mr. Planche had produced linwley's
with great alterations and aildi•ions. at Covent•ganien
Tin•
-litre, where it had tuet with the most decided success. lie had
IPI di.pnncd of the copyright to 31r. Dolby, fora considerable sum
• money, and Lowndes, theretiwe, was not merely. injurinn the
Property of his (Mr. Agnes) client, but also committing a fraud
upon the public, by palming upon them the old play with the
Lew title, as the one now acting at Cevert.ganlen Theatre.
The VicE.Citi.icE•Lbse.—Has the defendant copied any part
of the new play ?
Mr. AGAR—No part. ezeept the title and the dearnath per.
*ore. lit., application was to prevent the defendant from publish-
to alp. Phinche.title.
The Vlct:-Ctia arc I:ct.on.-11ael you nor better atTly upon the
most extended g-rotudL—the fraud upon the public? lu. better way
would he to amend the bill, and to apple on Miniday for iniunc-
ti.rn to restrain the defendant from publishing the old play with the
new title. _ . .

AIL Amin assented to this suggestion, and the case stands
over ull Monday mitt (this day).

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, SATURDAY, Nov. 20.

THE KING t. THE MAYOR OF COLCHESTER:

Mr. Jessor r otorea for • rule to she, cause why a Mandamus
should not issue to the Mayor of Colchester, commanding hint to
siren in Mr. Ilorat:o Perkins as a free Burgess of that rough.
Jo the modern charter of the Corporation of Colchester, Mr. Perkins
lead been named by the Crown as one of the Common Council of
the Borough fee life, and by the e:harter it was ordained, that in
cast of any vacancies, by death or otherwise, the vacancies should
in future, be tilled up from amongst the free Burgesses. Mr. Per-
kin, was not, in fact, a free Burgess at the time of his nomination
as a Councilman, nor had he since been admitted to his freedom,
and having acted as a free Burgess, a Imo warrii4ie information was
moved against him last Term, to 'hew by what authority he so
acted. On that occasion the Court refused the rule, on the ground
that by accessary implication a Common Councilman was entitled
to all the privileges uf a free Burgess ; and as Mr. Perkins was
named in the Charter as one of the modern Common Caned.
men, he was so entitled. The Learned Counsel cited the report of
that application, from 4 Tenn Reports, and seemed anxious
to ascertain whether the Court adhered to the opinion then expressed.
Since that application, and upon the authority of what the Court
then said, Mr. Perkins had applied to he sworn as a free Burgess,
in order to Ilia exereising the right of voting fur certain annual offi.
ems in the Borough, and the 3layor having refused to swear him
in. the present application became necessary.
The Charter being handed to the Court,
Mr. Junks Bowser said, it seens to me that the Charter hav-
ing made Mr. Perkins a 4'ommon Councilman, he became, ipso
facto, a Common Councilman, with all the rights, authorities, and
prinleges to that office belonging. Ile is to take the Common
Oouneilman's oath, and that is all.
Mr. Justice llotuoYn.—lt seems to me, from the Charter, that
there is no necessity for admitting him to the office of a free Bur-
gess ; as a Common Councilman he is also entitled to the rights uf
• free Burgess. That was my opinion on the former occasion, and
I think en still ; bet whether that be sour not, if he takes the
oath of a Common Councilman, and he is admitted to that office,
men he is cn'itled to all the rights and privileges of that office,
whether it includes the rights and privileges of a free Burgess
er not.

The LAID CHIEF JusTrcr had left the Court to attend the
Privy Council, and Mr. Justice LIT TLEDALI: was gone to Guild-
hail Sittings.
Mr. Jae sor r. took nothing by his motion.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATIAIDAY, N0v.20.

1:1 Tar. TIATTEE OT AWNA WARTA HARRISON Y. STONE, GENT.

Mr. SeTje3llt VAUGHAN moved fur a rule to shew cause why the
defendant, an attorney, residing near Gloucester, should not refund
a certain sum of money he had received from the complainants, and
why he should not dive them an account of certain property which
he nail sold on their behalf. The Learned Scrjeant founded his
motien on rr-partr affidavits, which stated that the complainants
carried on business in the vicinity of Gloucester; that, being in
tear of arrest on account of a debt due from them to a third prawn,
Cier applied to the defendant fur his professional ass:stance.
V-r.we he rendered them any assistance, lie required the advance of
17V1. The complainants not being then able to advance such a
1.,14), raised 1011/. which they placed in his hands, and at the same
tinte.'by his desire, they executed an assignment of all their property
M the two persons whom he procured to become bail. one of
althorn was alleged to be a mere man of straw, and the other was
vie defendant's own clerk. The debt had been since satisfied,
but the defendant refusal to return the money they had advanced
to him, or to render any amount to the complainants, aho were,
ti.erefore, compelled to have recourse to the summary power of the
Court.

The Cot:AT, considering that the mattes dun stated required,
if true. some ansain, stopped the Learned Sergeant, and at unce
grunted the rule.
_

SCOTT S. EYE.

In this caws debt of 51s. had been recovered in the Court of
liequeits; and a writ of false judgment was sued out and made
rcumahle in the Court of Common I'leas, where the matter was
argued at cansideraLle length.
The Come JUII7/CP: this day delivered the judgment in the
use, which was, that a Court of COIIIIIIOII Law had no jurisdiction
urn the decisions of the Court of Requests, which, in the statute
by which it was constituted, was called a Court of Equity. llis
Lordship expressed great satisfaction that the Court hail ro juris.
diction in the case, as otherwise litigious parties would defeat the
benevolent intention of the Legislature in instituting the Court of
Requests, by appealing to Courts of Law.
The rest of the Judges of the I ours concurred in this opinion.