The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-08-05 00:00:00

VICF.•CILINCELLOII'S COURT.

• ••-•••••- ...........
T/lIC ♦ICK•LIIANI:KLLOt, IN LINCOLN'S INN, THIS DAY, AT

Coupland v. !toward
and (Abbe
Moure v. Jones
Carpenter v. Joints
Cur:log v. May
Edwards v. May
Lewis v. Lewis
Fairbras4 v. Furnace
Watson v. hocking
Coe v. Hemming
Stroud v. k:uton
Jones v. Cisughton
Goulding v. O'Neill
Denalidown v. Duff
Page v. Brown
Atkins v. Smith

HALF-PAST TIV.•
Bankrupt Petitimos.
Holden v. Elford Bennett v. Brlndley
Elford v. Kilned Burro&Ile v. William
Holland v. Maiben 11011
Castell •. Wentworth King Y. Jenkins
Brent Airy v. Bronchia, Stanger v. hiorrey
Ilitlr v. Ca-Sou Maude v. Leader
Moy v. )lay Godtlord •. White
Fntcher v. Waketord Baring v. Waugh
May v. May Sounders v. (Thurman
Droycott v. Archer Bassett v. Booty
Sbortbouse v. Sethi% Turnin v. Dore
Dixon v. Morris Crowder v. Hurst
::eat v. Cooke Tucker v. 'rocker
Hoyle v. itobami Hall T. Bennett
Watkits4on v. Monde Ladbroulte v. Bishop
Pemberton v. Stoket

CAUSIS, ' R. DII,

RoLI.S
LICCTIONA ANI) PATITIO!
AT ?OVA in TOIL How
BromL.•ad r. Hunt, ye-
t titiun _

rS, ST CONSENT, TIM

Cobham ♦. Bush, peil:

Smith v. Sutherland,

Stowell V. Ilan, fur-
ther
In re liar' pea on
Abbott. v Young. auie
Shnltlewc. r. ..a.

ausa
Colebrook, v. Leigh,

CremoVne Y. Datviton.
Batton v. Barnett, do.
Aeltwii v. Waiiiv, ditto
Barry v. King, dicta
Bridge. v.Buldaivorthy,
(lino _ .

petition
Slater v. Duffield. ditto
Irwin v. Mille, ditto
L'Estrenge V. L'El-
trange, ditto
Nixon v. Dahairy, do.
Iluniund V. Helmond,

joribsiiks, petition
Knife v. Harrison, do.
Squire v. Squire, ditto
Cos v. Cockerel, ditto
Butter v. Baker, ditto
Powell r. /lousier, fur-
ther directions

Waddell v. Tucker. do.
Cornbe ♦. Drink water,
fitrl her directions

Beaumont V. Paine, pt.

Itlcev.llavenpurt, pe-

ditto
Page •. Clay, further

directions
Burbell Brarkin,

SaMe7. Same, ditto
Same v. Same, ditto
Same v. Same, ditto
Alt.-Gen. v. Plumply*,
ditto _

Kiiritutan V. Hinzmin,
ditto _

petitiou
Vllnewt v. Willson, do.
Pilk ington v. Smith. do.
Hendy v. Firth, ditto
lu re Strode's Charity,
ditto

....
Brown v. Lewis, ditto
Smith V. Postifes. fur-
thertlitections
' in rs Htitchinson, pc-

Soa•erby v. Sowerby.
dato _ .

Wakefield v. Templer,
ditto

_
Clarke v. Lord Or-
made, ditto

Duteller v. Vale. come
Belt v. Resnick. ditto
Hooker v. Hooker, pe-
tition

Pyles v. Mallen*, ditto
Dent v. Louden, ditto
Ca -an weir v. :4 trade, do.
Colson v. Dormpler, do.
Tomlin* v. Tutotlins,do.
%Vernet v. Clover, do.
Es porte YiThmonsers'
Company, ditto
Mnatyn v. Wynne. do.
Ptitington •. Smith.do.
Knowles v. Porter, fur-
ther directions

Stone v. Rede. mum
We.ton v.Falrlield, do.
Fairfield v.We-tim, do.
Ambrose V. Thomson,
ditto

Saudis v. Hatith
further directions
?lame v. same, petition
Carlow v. Co lie, ditto
Newman v. Neuman,
further directions
ExparteCommitisioners
of Sewers, petition
Haynes v. Marchant,
Howard v. James, ditto
Jacob v. Anibrinie, do.
ill son v. Awdry, ditto
%% Immure v, Morgan,
ditto

BMw v. Wlncin,tet,
petition
WUate roft v. Wheat-
croft. ditto..

11;;;;;;;;:1)orant,
further directions
nrinte v. Same, petition
Att.-Gen, v. Ld
Ccur-
tenay, further dirty-
' thins . _

Seine V. Same, petition
Le Grand ♦. Le Grand,
ditto

Grant v. Grant, ditto
In re Thoruturi, dine
Godfrey V. Lewis, fur-
titer dis ectiorel
Lonowurth Y. Wood,
ditto

St;;;; V. Knight, pit.
"lion _ . ._

HUI:e.I7IT v. Rel Fr'', (0.
1o:411110On Y. El, 1 agtcti,
ditto

Ex-parte Lawrence,do.
Gilbert v. Wetiterea,
Attv...Gen. V. Gllford.
ditto

InTet'elteh, petition
In re fli,hop of Bristol's
E•totev, petition
Hold,Cll v. Samwell,do.
Att.-Gen. v. Dixie, do.
Miller v. Lowe. ditto
Larpent v. Dun, ditto
I Jenkins v. Hnultun,pe-
Litton

I n;ellarrett's Estate
Act, ditto
In re Esrl of Shrews-
bury, ditto
Gordon v.Welstead, do.
Kewell ♦. Sewell, ditto
I Browne ♦. Groom-
bridge, ditto
Fairfield v. Weston, do

IC;ebore, ditto

Donner v. Hurd, further
direction.

Gardner V. Preston, pe-
tition

I,4.i:ennet v. Pido
ditty

LAB' INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Ftinaw, AUGUST 4.
At the sittings of the Court this morning, Mr. HART said he
had an application to make on the part of a person of the name
of .1. B. Smithson, row a prisoner In the Fleet, for debt,
that he might have a habeas directed to the Warden of the Fleet,
to bring up his body from day to day, in order that he might have
an opportunity of laying before Counsel such papers and informa-
tion as might be required in the conducting of a cause of " Smith-
son v. Sykes." It appeared, from the affidavit of the petitioner,
that he had a claim against the defendants in the cause. to the
amount of 130,0001.; but that, owing to his poverty, he had applied,
and obtained from the Master of the Rolls an order to prosecute the
suit in forma yatipzris, and Mr. Wm. Hunter was appointed his
solicitor. It further appeared, that on the 3d of July last petitioner
received a letter from Mr. Hunter, requesting to be furnished with
a sum of 2/., to enable him to get a copy of the order of the Master
of the Roils ; but that petitioner not being able to advance the
money, no further proceedings had been taken. Another object
of the application was, that Mr. Hunter might be directed to de-
liver up sonic papers and documents in his possession, belonging
to the petitioner. Mr. Hart observed, if his Lordship granted the
application, he did not know what useful purpose it was to be ap-
plied to, though it was his duty to submit it to his Lordship, as
the papers were left at his office, not signed by any Solicitor, but
by the petitioner himself.
The Lo RD CHANCELLOR observed, that he had no power to
grant a habeas, to direet the Warden of the Ylert2Bl)llnah v 4, the
body of the petitioner from day to day before Coons dl. As Mr.
Hunter had been appointed this person's solicitor under the au-
thority of the Court, if that gentleman would attend hint before he
cameinto Court, either tomorrow or Monday morning, he would
inquire the nature of his commitment, and see what he could do for
his benefit.
Mr. HART was not aware that Mr. Hunter had notice of this
motion.
The Loan CHANCELLOR observed, if the party had been com-
mitted for contempt, he would do all he could with propriety for
his relief; but if he had been committed to prison for debt, he did
not know that he could do any thing with it. His Lordship ob.
served, there was now in anticipation, and he hoped It would take
place when Parliament met again, that in a case where, after a
long suit, a man had been ordered to convey an estate which he had
unlawfully possessed, to the person to whom it belonged, and the
man said, "why, sooner than you shall have your estate, I will stop
in the Fleet fur life." it was in contemplation to give a person the
power to execute the deed, his execution to be the same as if the
party had executed it himself, in order that the rightful owner
might not be kept out of his property, and also that the other party
might not complain that he was kept in prison. Ile was quite sure,
if tam subjects were fully examined, it would be found that the
complaints made were wholly without foundation, because if any
one supposed it was the wish of any man in this country to keep
another in prison, they were very much mistaken, as he had never
met with that man yet, and he hoped he never should. With re-
spect to those persons now in prison, on whose situation observa-
tions had been made, he was quite sure, front his own knowledge,
they would not be discharged.
LITERARY PROPERTY.
74AW MAN AND OTHERS V. TEGO.
In this case the SOL lc IT on-OE N E MAL moved for an injunction
to restrain the defendant from further publishing a work called
The London Encyclopedia, on the ground of its being a piracy of
a work called The Encyclopaylia illetiopolibina, of which the
plaintiff is the proprietor. It appeared. from the statement of the
Learned Gentleman, that the plaintiff purchased the work of
which he is the proprietor, from the assignees of a Mr. Fenner,
the forme! proprietor, and he understood a question was to be
raised by the other side, that two of the assignees of Mr. Fenner
had purchased his share in the work ; but for the purpose of pro.
tecting the book, the legal title was vested in the plaintiff in this
cause. In 1321 this book was first brought out, under the title
of The Encyclopedia Metrupolittina, by Mr. Fenner, wl:o, at that
time, had the assistance of a Mr. Curtis, who was not now averse
to inform the readers of the London Eacychiprdia that he had been
the Editor of the Encyclopedia Mai erlitana. It was worthy of
attention that if a book was published,—the preparation of
which most have put the proprietor of the copy-right to
a very large expense—by and by was to be illegally in.
terccpted by another book taking tho matter contained in that
work, the owners of the copyright of the original work
would incur a considerable loss ; for this was nut like a
a pamphlet; it was a work which ran through all the let-
ters of the alphabet ; and when a man launched a book
into the literary world in the nature of a Dictionary, and continued
six or seven numbers of it, a great loss must be hncuned by him
if his book was partly copied by
.another person. The plaintiff had
been nearly five years in possession of this work when this illegal
rival was set up, and he used that term because he was not con-
tending that a book which had successfully circulated from
MI to 132;a might nut be intercepted by one on a similar
plan, containing new matter; but when his Lordship was told
of the identity of the name, the name of the one being only a
translation from the other, and also the identity of the Editor (for the
London Encyckpedia was professed to be edited by Mr. Curtis) he
thought he was not carrying the proposition too far, to say that the
man who copied a name, would also go on copying that which he
load no right to copy. He would now call his lordship's attention to
the inside of the book. If his Lordship would look at the book,
and refer to the word an, he would find Mr. Alawman had given
two meanings to it. The one was, that it was an article, and the
other that it was an imperative; and these definitions were taken
from a very learned writer, a• eminent as a grammarian as a politi-
cian—he meant Mr. Horne Tooke, who, by a long and laborious
investigation, had brought to light a great deal of information, as
to the general use of the words used in the English language.
There were also other illustrations taken from Percy's Lleliyucs
and Robert of Gloster and it so happened that the geatleman who
had been the editor of' Mr. lawman's book had exactly hit upon
the same illustration to the very letter, in the work published by
Mt. Tegg. lie should have thought this editor would have con-
tented himself with going back to the time of Queen Ann, to find
an illu.:tration, but he had manifested such a marvellous love of the
olden times, as to go as far back as the Edwards ar.d the Tudors,
to get a definition of the word WI. In three parts out of four of
many of these articles, the subjects were exactly copied from the
plaintiff's book, and not only the tic,inittons, but the illustrations
and examples, which were not to be met with in any other book or
dictionary, but were, for the first time, introduced into duo Ency-
clopedia Melropolilona. Though it was not morally tumult:Ole
that Mr. Curtis might not have taken these illustrations front Percy's
&blues and Robert if Gloster, yet. in human oreiummtion and rea-
soning on human acts, it was so impossibles, that in legal presump-
tion it vats equal to proof that he did copy it from the plaintiff's
book. There was hardly an article in this book, in which either
the whole, or a great part, had not been copied by the defendant,
who, :iat satHkd with copying that part winch was correct, had

.. 10
1

also copied the errors and mistakes contained in the Encgolorudia
Meteor Maria. lie recollected a case in Lord Erskine's time, re.
specting the printing of a Book of Roads, where the pertain who
puldiehed the work had, In describing a beautiful teat belonging
to Mr. Justice Grose, robbed that Learned Judge of the letter R.
and called hint Mr. Justice (lose ; anti there it was held that the
man who had pirated the work could not have gone down to the
seat of Mr. Justice Grose., for the purpose of inquiring who oc-
cupied It, and have made that reiatake, but had, no olontit, copied
it from the original work, In which the same mistake had been
made.
The LORD CIIANC IF: Li.on said, there had been a later case than
that mentioned by :11r. Solicion.General, where Sir Sant. Rondlly
made an application respecting his Learned Friend Sir Giffin
Wil%oo being called Sir I hritlin.
The Sneterroe-Gowenat observed, it was rather a singular
circumstance, that both cases should have related to the letter It,
being in one rave added, and in anuthet left out. lie would now
call his Lordship's attention to the book, by referring him to the
word " arbour," of which every one knew the refreshment and en-
joyment, except Chancery Lawyers, who could not, at this time
of the year, enjoy the pleasure of sitting henceth tine. In the
1 plaintiff's bcok, the definition of the word arbour was," air bower."
;Now, a more common man might have called it a yiltiee Iterated with
trees ; but such learned men as write for these hooks sontetitnes
made things appear in a different way from what they me tut. The
definition " air bower" was ascribed by plaint di; iii Its hook, to Dr.
Hicks, when it was, in reality, Dr. Ilenshaw's t and the defendant
had fallen into the same error, by exactly copying the plaintiff's
illustration. In another instance, where a definition was given of the
word "ash," the plaintiff had resorted to Dryden's Georgics,
but the Editor, or some others had trade a mistake, and
called it Drayton's Georgics instead of Dryden's. Mr. Tegg
would have his Lordship believe that he had hit exactly upon the
same four lines, and called it Drayton's instead of Dryden'e, being
the very sante mistake as the plaintiff had made. The next lie would
mention was the word " alms," and it so happened that his client
had, instead of giving the definition. "charitable donation." in its
proper place, put the illustration first taken front Mr. Tooke, and
the definition afterwards. Mr. Tegg had, however, fallen into a
1 worse error, by making the definition exactly thither the scribing it
1 to Mr. Teoke, and thereby making that gentleman what he never
was. 'AL the author of a book on charitable donations. Ile now
tome to another word, which he would cull the attention of the
Court to. It was the word " abjure," and the meaning given to it
in Mr. Maternan's hook was, " To swear, to go away from, or to
leave," which was certainly the proper meaning. The person who
composed the book had, however, put a full stop at the end of the
words " to swear," by which some persona would suppose one mean-
ing of the ward was " to eweer,"and another," to go away from." 3I r.
Tegg had, however, fallen into the sante species of error, except that
he had put a semicolon at the end of the words" to swear," and not
a full stop. He (the Solicitor-frenerel) recollected a man, of the
name of Patch, having been tried and found guilty of murdering
his master, and the principal evidence against him was, his having
a pair of stockings in his 1/01111rt$1011 covered with sawdust. It was
stated that he had been seen in ate yard of his master with those
stockings on, in which yard there was a quantity of 'lewdest a short
time before the shot was fired which killed that unfortunate gen-
tleman. Now he could almost fancy that he saw Mr. Tegg copying
these passages with his own hand, front the work of ale Maw.
man ; and it was for that reason he compared this case to that of
Patch. There was another singular article which he would refer
his Lordship to, respecting the Hinder, Mythology, which the de-
fendant had also copied. It stated that t•ere were ten supposed
deities, to whom adoration was paid by this superstitious and hi-
therto unenlightened nation ; and as to the incarnation of the Sas
viour of the World, these people thought that incarnation separated
itself into certain individuals, ten in number. This singular his-
tory was an abridgment made by the plaintiff from Mr. Ward's
new of 'Pulite) Mythology. lie would rot trouble the Court any
further ; but he hoped that,under all the eircumetances, his Lore-
ship would think lie had ade out a sufficient case for the injunc-
I tion asked for.
The LORD Cwawerehetaa observed, he recollected a case where
an injunction was asked fur to restrain the publishing of a book
of roads; and, he conceived, if any mail thought proper to intr.
vey the same roads, and to print his book, it it was the effect of
his survey, lie had a right to do it. But if, instead of surveying
the roads, he inserted in his work a copy of part of Patterson's
Book of Roads, to the extent that lie hail copied front Patterson.
this Court would not allow him to publish it. lie recollected
another case, re-pecting the piracy of a work, called the Court
Guide, in consequence of a great many mistakes being copied ;
sad that was taken as evidence that the whole work was a copy.
Mr. SPENCE and Mr. LORAINE were then heard on the same
tilde with the SOLICITQI-UENEKAL.
I Mr. Hoase, as counsel for Mr. Tegg, observed, the question
of piracy could not be gone into till the parties had satisfied the
Court they were the owners of that copyright, and they must also
satisfy the Court that they had made the application within due
time. Now, in this case, the bill was not filed till the 22t1 of last
July, on the eve of the long vacation; and, his Lordship would
find by the bill, that the parties had been aware of Mr. Tegg's
pwbllslang this work ever since last March. When he, theretore.
emulated the tines, he thought the parties had been guilty of
great lacks id: this case, and that they ought not to have taken so
long a time before they bail applied for the injunction. Mr. F et.-
net w .s the person under whom the plaintiffs, for there were twenty.
two of than, claimed the copyright of this work. In 1819. Fenner
-I=sa Isswelnwp.e, and Mr. AI awman was appointed bis aseignee.
was wad m the different affidavits made by the 'plaintiff was,
that they believed, and to the best of their knowledge,3lr. F. was in
e a,
of the copyright. It did not appear to have been legally
The tide originally was in a Mr. Curtis, a Miss
II and Mr. Fenner. The same Mr. Curtis alluded to
by 'the plaintiff was one of those in whom the title originally vest.
ed, and he defied the plaintiff to prove that the title ever went out
of him, or that Miss Richardson ever parted with her third. A
Mr. Richardson had been mentioned by the plaintiff as a person
who furnished matter for that work ; but he was not stated to have
any share in it. The consequence, therefore was, that the plaintiffs
had no grounds which would justify them in leaking for the in-
junction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR interrupted Mr. Home, by desiring
him, as it was now past five o'clock, to proceed with this matter.
tomorrow (this day). in the course of the morning, the Lord
Chancellor observed, that with respect to whit' had been said as to
hie reading the papers in a cause before he gave judgment. he
should be glad, for the satisfaction of all mankind, that there
should be one week's experiment how this Court could do justice do
the parties if he did not read the papers. What I mean, said hiss
Lordship, is neither more nor less than this, that the business of
this Court, as now managed, cannot go on, unless the Chancelldr
reads the papers ; it is impossible. Other people may be able to ao
it; but the individualftwho sits in this chair is too dull, has hhd
too little experience, and possesses too little knowledge to do t e
business of this Court, without he gives himself that assistance
which he so often calls for.

HOME CIRCUIT.

MAIDSTONE, Ato. 3.

CROWN SIDE.
tßefore Mr. Justice llot.nottn.l
FORGERY.
Joint Peek, alias deorge Watson, deseribed in the calendar as
a merchant, who pleaded Guilty, yesterday, to four several indict-
ments, charging him with having forged and uttered, in this
county, four different bilk of exchange, purporting so be respec-
tively drawn by certain foreign houses, and accepted and indorsed
by trading firms in this country, having been humanely allowed
by the Learned Judge time to consider until this morning, whe-
ther he would abide by his plea, or retract it, and take the chances
of a trial, was, at the sitting of the Court, placed at the bar, when
Mr. A no t.Plitts stated, on his behalf, that since yesterday some
friends of the prisoner had arrived in the town, and having advised
hint, in so serious a case, to stand an investigation of the various
charges against hint, he now respectfully claimed the liberty of
availing himself of the indulgence which the Learned Judge had so
tenderly allowed him permission to seek, if he should be so minded.
The prisoner now wished to withdraw his plea of guilty, and to
take his trial on the plea of not guilty.
Mr. ANDREWS and Mr. Baonnicx, Counsel for the prosecu-
tion, said they had Ito resistance to offer to the prisoner's request ;
but they were placed in this difficulty, that, in consequence of the
prisoner's pertinacious determination, expressed yesterday, of abid-
ing by his plea of guilty, the witnesses for the Crown had gone
away, and perhaps it might be impossible to procure their attend-
ance again pending the present assizes, in which case there might
be a failure of justice. A message should be sent after the wit-
nesses, and if possible they should be brought back by Saturday
morning. If this were found impracticable. the prisoner must con- I
sent that the trial should be postponed until the next Assizes.
The matter was ordered to stand over for an hour, at the end of
which time an affidavit was produced, stating that one of the most
material witnesses for the Crown, a gentleman near eighty years of
age, had been taken suddenly ill on his way home, and that it was
impossible his attendance could be obtained during these Assizes.
Under these circumstances, it was moved to postpone the trial until
the next gaol delivery.
No objection was offered on the prirt of the prisoner; and it was
accordingly ordered that the trial should stand over until the next
Wirdez Assizes.
MANSLAUGH'f ER.
Robert Renton, a person of a most respectable appearance. *as
placed at the bar, ter the purpose of being arraigned on the Coro-
ner's Inquisition, charging him with feloniously killing and slaying
Robert Renton, the younger, his son, a child of tender years, by
striking him on the head with a leather strap, armed with a buckle,
at Bromley, in July last. A bill of indictment had been prefereed
against him for the same homicide, but it was ignored by the Grand
Jury. Before he was put to plead to the Inquisition a conterence took
place, between Mr. Adolphus, for the Crown. and the Learned
Judge, as to the sufficiency of the record. It seemed that the
Inquisition omitted to state any venue, either in the margin or in
the body of the record, and consequently, the Learned Judge be-
ing of opinion that this was a fatal objection, directed the Inqui.
sition to be quashed. There was another objection to the Inqui-
sition, which would also have been fatal, namely, as to the mode
by arich the death of the child was stated to have been occasioned.
Before the prisoner was removed from the bar,
Mr. ADOLPHUS, with the permission of the Learned Judge, I
said a few words to the Jury upon the Subject of the case, Which
had thus so satisfactorily terminated. Sonic interest was, no doubt.
excited in their minds by the • nature of the offence from which
the unhappy gentleman at the bar had been discharged—an offence
at which human nature recoiled. As Counsel for the prosecution,
tt would have been his painful duty to state the circumsrotees of
he case, had not the Learned Judge; with that perspicuity lot