The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-11-19 00:00:00

■Rlt V. WARD.

Mr. Wrruntitt.t. begged to iliforas his Lordship,
that Mr. Scarlett would be prepared to wait upon
his Lordship hero to-morrow morning at nine
o'clock. to address the Court uu this lousiest for a
ne.. html.r

Mr. HART. on the other side, stated that this
motion wee first made by Mr. Solicitor-General
himself. sod others, in July last. and the Court
desired the Defendants to file certain affidavits,
which they neglected to do until the 411 i of the pre-
sent month ; and his (Mr. Horeb) clients have not
since had an opportunity of Sling affidavits in an.
ewer, as they had to send into differelit parts of the
country In collect lamination.
Mr. WETHERELL, its reply, contended, that he
was in possession of a verdict from the Common
Plea., which the gentlemen on the other side were
perfectly convinced they could ou no mcount di.-
turb. He hoped his Lordship would not permit
them to trifle with the Court, and to trifle with
just►ce, as they bare trifled, es they are trifling,
and as they will trifle with them. unless his Lord-
ship's power should intervene, because delay, and
nothing but delay, was the 4.l.iret of their motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" I shell hem Mr.
Scariest tn.morrow 11111 l noiig at nine o'clock."
His Lordship was occupied the remainder of the
day in hea►itsg bankrupt petitions, of uo iuterrst
except to the parties concerned.

VICE-CH A NCELLOR'S COURT,
SION DST, NOVIIIISER 18.

PETERSFIELD CHARITY.

The Counsel for the relators having concluded
this cast—
The VICC•CHiNCELLOR intimated to Mr.
Horne, the Counsel for the trustees, that it was
unnecessary fur him to trouble him. lie entered
into a very enlarged view of the subject, stating
the result of his opinion to be, that there was out
oily blame attached to ■ny of the members of the
Jolliffe family, who, it appeared, had acted as
trustees. There were some who, from age and iu-
firosity, had ceased to act ; these he wished to ten-
der their resignation. With respect to the general
interests of the charity, he referred it to the Master
to prepare a new scheme for its future regulation—
a measure he considered necessary, iu consequence
of the increase of its funds.
Noumea* 16.
LOWNDER er. DVIICOIIIe.
Mr. STUART moved for au injunction against the
Delesidout, who is a bookseller, to resusin him
from pirating the copyright of the Plaintiff in the
songs, chorusses. &c. of the popular dramatic en-
tertainment called Ciovimai in London. These

songs were Wrlliew by a aft. :Vomit ft tithe sold
and assigned the copyright in them to M►. Losrlidell
Ithe I'laint►A); a bookseller, in flow.ritreet, Covent-
■rdest. The Plaintiff had published these wings,
and derived Brent profit frost the publication, hut
the Defendant had lately published a cheap edition
of them', and thereby infrooged the copyright of
the Pliuotiff, and injured the sale Of his publics.
non. This app!ication for an isiunctiose was there-
fore necessary to protect the property of the Plain.
tiff in these songs,
Sranct, for the Defendant, insisted that
the case was of such a nature thit the Court could
not grunt un injunction. lie produced an afßdavit
in which it was sworn, that Mr. Elliston, of Drury.
lane Theatre, had declared that the copyright of
these songs I►.looged to him.
Mr. STUAIr penance.' an affidavit by the Plain-
tiff and Mr. Airmen. ff of the truth of the facts of
his case, and called upon. the Defeudant to state
whether the copyright had ever been assigned to
Mr. Ellis ttttt .

The Vica•CitatrcvtAna said he could not grant
an injunction in this ra•e, unless the affidavit of the
Defendant was aatisfet•tunly answered. He there
bile duetted the rs.e to stand over till Friday nest,
tbat theta sleight be time to file affidavits in reply.

cOCIRT OF KING'S BENCH, WzrrismsTsa,
N brimming,' IS.
THE ZINO v. CLARKS.

Mr. Gentlest' moved the judgment of the Court
on this Defendant, ■ bookseller, living in the
Strand. convicted at the last Middlesex sitting. of
publishing a blasphemous libel in the work called
el Queen Mah." prosecuiiou was instituted at
the iustsuce of the Society fur the Suppression of
Vice.

The CHI rr JUSTICE resd his notes of the evidence
token at the tionl. The Jury on &ding him gushy
recommended hint to mercy on account of his po-
verty.

The Defendant put in an affidavit, which stated
that lie had a wife sod two child►en, and had been
by this prosecution reduced to great poverty and
distress.

G. Prichard, the Solicitor for the prosecution,
put in Imp turn affidavit, which owed that the De-
fendant had, since the p►osecution was comusetweil
against him, continued to cell the wink in ques-
tion.

The Defendsot then addressed the Court in
mitigation of punishment. fie had offered the
Solni►or for the prosecution, when lie first learned
• prosecution was commenced against him, to give
up every copy of the woo k, and disc Gomm the '
sale; but, alter some consideration, the offer was
refused. Front that time to the wiled of his Sisol,
▪ space of 18 await's, he had not ill any way
offended against the law; and he could. if he h■d
been aware of it, have brought forward an affidavit
to shew that, at the time the copy of the woo It wail
bought at hie shop, after the prosecution had com-
menced against him, as stated in Mr. Prichard's
affidavit, it was sold during his absence from tows'
by his servant, and was entirely without his know-
ledge ; and, finally, he submitted to the Court
that he had not in any way aggravated his rollesoce
by the manner of cuoductiog his defence at dte
trial.

The CIIICIPJUiTICE-" You conducted your-
self with g►rrt decorum •t the triad. You certainly
did nothing then to deprive you of • toeiciful con-
sideration."

The Defendant begged to
state of destitution to which he was reduced, it
alight be impossible for him to procure any secu-
rities for good behaviour. Ile hoped the Court
would be pleased, therefore, to add to his imprison-
ment rather then make that a pert of his sentence.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Court in aggrava-
tion of punishment, and urged the translation of
the notes in the work as adding materially to the
mischievous tendency of it, cud the necessity of
stopping the mischief by punishing the ollisiding
par ties.
Mr. Justice BATLEY—“ The men is abso-
lutely ruined by this prosecution, according to his
own statement."

Mr. Guaxa doubted whether the Defendant
could have been put to V. expense on account of
this propecutioo. With respect to lie work itself,
it was almost needless for him to soy that a more
mischievous publication could not he found. and
he much feared, unless rep d with some degree
of severity, it would continue to circulate to the
great injury of the community.
The Defendant asked if lie might be permitted
to make an observation on what had falleu from
Mr. Gu►oey ?
Mr. Justice BAT LET—" You cannot with pro-
priety observe on what Mr. Gurney has said, hut
you may, if you have omitted to state any things
now supply it."
The Defendant said, lie merely wished to state
that the notes to the work were translated in an-
other work, which had gone through► five editions,
before he published. The expenses to which he
had been put were not so much money out of his
pocket, as the injury be had tustaitied by his busi-
ness being absolutely ruined.
After conferring with the other Judges—
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said. the Ju►y had
recommended the Defendant to mercy. and the
Court were desirous of giving effect to that ret om-
menclation. Was the Defendant now prepared to
give up all the untold copies of the yolk, and euter
into his own recognisance to be of good behaviour,
and to come up for judgment it called upon ?
The Defendant said he wished to explain to the
Court under what circumstances he was at present.
lie had been arrested, mid, after remaining some
time in prison, had applied to take the benefit of
the Act for the Relief of Intolyrist Debtor., but,
un sending to the printer, be refused to give up the
possession of the copies in his hands till his bill was
paid. He (the Defendant) had not two copies of
the book to Ins possession.
Mr. GURNEY Mid, on the face of the book. it
purported that the Defendant was himself the
printer. If the Defendaut would give up the name
of the printer it would he sumethirig.
The Defvor!ant said, that had never been re-
quired of hint.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—." But the Court now ra
quire it."
The Defendant said, that as Ire had no idea of a
prosecution when he engaged with the printer, he

-~----