The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
—.ow—

COURT OF CHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, JUNE IS.
MR. ABERNETHY AND " THE LANCET."
SOLICITOR.UTNEMAL resumed the adjournment of this
apt.lreation far an injunction. He said that if his Lordship had
k dulged him with only a few minutes more on Saturday last, he
sbeithl have finished his reply.
The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked that this was a matter
beyond eontroul ; for the Chancellor had no place wherein to
bir!d his' Court, except by the indulgence of the Henchers of Lin.
scan'. Inn, which in Term time could not be extended beyond a
es rt..in hour ; anti other appointments called off his attention.
Sit. SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded, and compared tble
ease with the manuscripts of Lord Clarendon and the letters 41
Mr. Pope. lie contended that the publishers were doing an act
in breach of an implied trust—that the principle was the same
whether there were a manuscript or not ; hitt the manuscript did
rim U was made by a pupil in the room, and there WAA there.
Sure no diffeeence ; and even if Mr. Abemethy had given his
pupil; a lithel/4raphic copy, that would net have authorised its
publication . • nor would there be any difference if the lecture were
taken down by a short-hand writer. Surely he could not make it
his own by die mere manual operation of taking it down.
The leoun CHANCELLOR stated this to be an application for
au injunction, and the application appeared to be made on three
grounds ! First, that Mr. Abernethy had a literary property ;
second, that a trust had been violated ; third, that there bed
been a breach of contract : ane the application had been met by
objections on the ground of delay, and that there ought to have
been an action commenced by Mr. Abernethy to establish his
right. If there were a right the Court would grant an injunction,
notwithstanding what had been urged at the bar; for it the Court
Gould trot grant an injunction what had hitherto been done was
wrong, arid the jurisdiction of tbc Court would have been grounded
upon usurpation. Authors would indeed he put in a perilous
situation if t hey were obliged to bring an action every time their
copyright were invaded. An objection had been raised that Mr.
Abernethy could be said ta be a lecturer only at connected with
the Hospital, and that those who were entitled to attend could not
be put under any prohibition for publishing lectures, which would
require consideration. When this came first before the Court (said
his Lordship) it was put on the ground of literary property, and in
this view he thought the manuscript ought to be produced, as the
only legal evidence, and for waht of it he did not then see how an
injunction could be granted. Tire question was now put on the
Krona of a breach of trust arising from a contract, and it wax to
be inquired how far that contract between bkr..lhernethy arid his
pupils could affect the publishers; aril his Lordship wished to be
dearly undeistood, that anything be might say on the case did not
refer to Professors at Universities, who delivered lectures front.
taareaseeipts. His Lordship added, that he did not think a Court
of Equity should grant an injunction until the question had been
tried at Law ; that the cases of injunctian granted for restraining
the publication of letter's were very strong. In one of those cases,
the person who wrote the letter had said se his correspondent,
" wake what use you please of the letter," and yet it had been
decided that that only gave a quasi property in the letter to the
person to whom it was written, who could not receive any pecuniary
profit or emolument whatever by publishing it. betted were com-
munications coupled with a trust and confidence. Hid Lordship
then concluded his remarks by stating, that without entering at the
present into the consideration of the duties attached to Mr. Aber-
nethy sea rurgeon at the Hospital, he thought the subject-matter
of the present application resolved itself into two questions : First,
trhether there was any legal contract between Mr. Abernethy and
the publishers whereon be could sustain an action ? secondly, If
there were not, could an injunction be applied for and granted by
this Court? His Lordship knew not how the defendants obtained
the means of publishing these lectures; whether any of the pupils
communicated them, or whether they were written by some short-
hand writer who was not • pupil, or by the publishers themselves.
He coneluded by stating, that he would give his judgment on Fri-
day morning.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15.
DUNCAN V. TREND AND ANOTHER.
The plaintiff' iu this cruse was Mr. Andrew Duncan. a solicitor
of New Inn, and the defendant'. were printer anti publisher of the
Morning Advertiser eewapaper. The declaration imputed, that
the defendants had, in their peper, published • gross and scan-
dalous libel, of and concerning the plaintiff. The alleged libel, it
will be in the recollection of our readers, was contained in the report
orthe proceedings at Ross-st-ert police-office, where the plaintiff
had been twice examined on charge of indecent behaviour to two
Bide girls. On the trial no evidence was given by the plaintiff to
disprove that be had been examined at Bow-street on the
cherge alluded to, and the Jury found a verdict in favour of the
defer.adan ATTORNEY-GENERAL on a former day moved and ob.
tuned a rule to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside,
as being contrary to law, on the ground that, whether true or Case,
the defendants were not in law justified to publish police reports.
This morning the case came on for argument, when
,Me. Hoxv, 'tin the absence of Alr. Brougham) proceeded to
sTitiw cause aviast the rule ; he said that the present application
embraced two impottant qtestions, the one as to the right and pri-
vileges of juries, and the other as to the liberty of the press. If the
doctrine of the Attorney-General was to be acknowledged, it would
in future only be for a jury in • case of libel to .flo through the
formula of giving a verdict against a defendant, without taking the
tscruble of thinking fur themselves. Upon tale tetra his Lordship
had, in that candid manner which always distinguished him, put
the matter 'fairly to the jury--he had left the whole body and apt-
err of the case, including the question of malice, to their consider-
ation, and did not confine their attention to the mere question of
olidaposifig. writing, or publishing, and that was the proper way of
putting it, and the Jury, in the fair exercise of that power which
peculiarly belonged to them, had found fur the defendants.
• e thought that this was the first instance in an action of tort,
oqtan attempt w set aside the verdict of a Jury, after their tind-
tag in favour of the accused. The present was similar to e
case of cries. eon. ; and the Court would recollect, that in a cries.
con. action, brought by a gentleman, one of the Fellows of bier_
ten College, and which was tried in that Court. the evidence
on the part of the plaintiff was so strong as to induce all who
heard it to suppose it next to impossible the plaintiff should not re.
cover, yet the Jury found • verdict for defendant, and the Court
refused to diatutb that verdict, on the Found that it amounted to
an acquittal of the defendant of a criminal act, yet this case was
allestards actually carried to the House of Lords, sad upon the
same evidence as was adduced in that Court, and obtained • divorce
against his wife—
The LORD CHIEN Jusetcw.--Yon are wrong, Mr. Holt, be
did produce other evidence io the House of Lords. It was a letter
...Lich the rules would not permit to be read as evidence against the
defendant in the action, although it was legal to read it against the
Wife of the plaintiff.
MT. HOLT then referred to Norris ~ Tyler, Cooper's Reports,
p. 11; the Court there refused to disturb a verdict, because the case
ammited of a criminal nature. The present ease was also most
certainly of a criminal nature, because the plaintiff might have pro.
ceeded against the defendants by indictment, in which case the
Go..irt would not disturb a verdict of acquittal.
The Loan Curse JUSTICE here interrupted the Learned
Counsel by saying, that he had a suggestion to throw out, which
wilutd put an end to this cause, and that was, whether both parties
would consent to a stet prortssus teing entered.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no objection.
Aslife HOLT would wish to consult his friend illr. Brougham.
AsOOLD CHIEF JUSTICE—WeII, I dare say, 31r.Hroughain will
be here in a few minutes. [At this moment Mr. Brougham en-
tered the Court]
LORD Crum, Jusvict then put the question to him.
Mr. Bsoundras did not like to take upon himself to consent to
she proposition ; he would first like to consult his clients.
LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE-1 think this is a case in which you
are well justified in exercising your own discretion.
Mr. *laminae's, after consulting with Mr. Holt, consented,
and a rule for • stet processas was accordingly directed to be
•drawn up.
Hy des arrangement each party pays his own costs.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 'WEDNESDAY, Jvwx 15.
JD AL•ANLEY.
set aside the annuity granted in
consideration money nominally
.um Howard and Gibbs received
negotiating the annuity. Several
by Lord Alvanley, some of the
and °thus becoming due. To
.ho acted throughout as agents
large part of the consideration money,
formally paid into Lord Alvanley's
retained by Howard and Gibbs. On
t contended that he was entitled
.1C the same motion on basil of
Lord Alvanley.

RS' COURT, JUNE IS.

order to disoatchthe renloanti

'ions to the Commissioners pro-
commence during the present weekL
usbridge, was opposed by Mr. Sa.
ground that he had fraudnlently
, allegation vas fully proved upon
that the Insolvent bad been
be committed by one man
not large, yet the intention
though the fraud had been more
- confined for six months within

ISSIZES.

;IRCULT.
t and Mr. Baron (JimiA/4.)
,uly 14, at Hertford.
Chelmsford.

•RDIEWIII s. LORD ,
Ft!" N. sergeant WILDE nlovNt to set
*Or saw by 111- defendant. The eon
amounted to 11,0001. Of this sum I
LOGOS. for their commission in negoci
anooities had been before granted by
ipatanents of which were then due. am
snap these Howard and Gibbs, who
trilbe plaintiff. retained a large par,
so that nut of the I teem torniall
bands, the sum of It OWL was retaino
Illitl tit
.... und, the Learned Sergeant co
t. application. Ile also made th
- Foley, who was surety for Lord
'• The COURT grouted the rules.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS'
DEBTORS'
The Court sat this morning, in of
of lintincos which stood over, previou
omdiorwn the Circuits, which comm
r
Ms Portman, hue of Knightsbrid
1 sinifilfgObinton, on the alleged grow
onagemeted a debt with him. The alb
tbeargh of the opposing creditor.
lII* eatur Coutossrow en said
) . guilty of as gross a fraud as could
*OW snottier; the amount was r
.• r war formumed to be as bad as thou
eangtahre.
Uwflotrar sentenced him to bete
the...prism, at Mr. Robinson's suit.
f_...e..._
SIM if E R AS
t —.....
MOMS CIRC.
N :.(Befave Chief Justice Bait and
fraftfordrhire—Thunday, July 14,
1 ip! •
ant—Monday, Jul
JJeuily2lsill ei,!lni
idat
Solatot—Saturday, Alyk, i!it.e.„,
Garvey—Thuraday, August 4, at Ct
i;
•
41, ........
...welrepw.,