The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-10 00:00:00

FRIDAY, NDY. 8.

This day Mr. Wetherell resumed his address, and after ex•
patioing on the various ivies cuonected with the ca►e, eon-
eluded about tv-elve o'clock.
Mr. Shad well a!so addressed the Crain.
Before the Lord Chancellor left the Court, he stated, that he
would inform the bar, either to-morrow, or on Monday, on
Wll4l day lie would he prepared to give judgment in moms in
which Le has bad for some time the papers.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
MONDAY, NOV. 4.
PRACTICE OF TUE COURT %ITN RESPECT TO INJUNCTIONS.
CoURT AND Co. V. SIoUNTJOY AND Co.

Mr. Dart moved for an injunction against the defendants
under the following circumstances:—His Majesty is seized, in
riAlit (lithe Crown, of the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire,
wnich contains much iron and coal. Any person who may he
desirous of working a mins?, she forest must make application
to toe King's Steward of 45 ~t, who, if he think lit, will
grant the person Mt antic. a of laud for that purpose._
In 1800 the plaintiffs 0bta.,...0 the grant of a piece of wound,
■nd the defendants were also put in possession of some contio-
ous land. The respective boundaries of each tract of land were
accurately defined. The plaintiffs lately had reason to suspect
that the defendants were encroaching upon their boundaries ;
and on the 26th of Aug. they had the gteund dialled, when it
appear.. %hilt the defendants had entered the boundaries of the
planitilfs, and were about to sink a pit there in order to dis-
charge the water out of their own mine into that of their neigh-
bours', the effect of which would he the complete destruction of
the works. The injunction he applied for was to restrain the
defendanta from proceeding with the construction of the pit.
The Vice Chancellor observed, that the Court was always
unwilling to issue an injunction Oil an exparle application, unless
the absolute necessity of the proceeding were evident. In the
present case there certainly was prima facie evidence of ueces-
bity, but at the same time, if the learned counsel had reason to
believe that no irreparable mischief would ensue Gum the delay
necessary in order to give the defendants notice, tie Court
would nut grant the injunction, but let the case stand over.
Mr. Hart said he was jai/Mitt' by his clients that the most
unfortunate results would ensue to them if the injuncti.m did
out immediately issue.
The 1 ice Chancellor said, that under these circumstances,
and because the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor was not
generally known, he would grant the injunction in the present
instance.
t.ittNy v. Is icitots, BVTLERWORTN AND OThERS.

Mr. Wilson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for an in-
junction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Nichols, Henry•
Butterworth, and Sintpkin mud Marshall, from publishing and
selling a work entitled " A Treatise no the practice of the
Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors."

The facts of the ease, as stolid by the learned gentleman,
were as follows the bear lb2l, the di (umlaut, Mr. Nichols,
an attorney, wrote the work iu question, which the plaintiff,
who is a bookseller iu Temple.lane, undertook to publish at his
own cos'. 'I he number of the first edition was 3410 ; all of
which. with the exception of IS copies, which went to Mr.
Nichols, were to be soil Mr the benelit of the plaintiff. The
copywrii.lit of the work was vested iu Mr. Nichols, but it was
stipulated that he should not publish a second edition, until the
whole of the first had been SOM. The plaintiff charged, that on
the 31st of October hist, Mr. Nichols, in i iulotiun °lbis a.,4ree-
turnt, gave to Messrs. Butterworth, of Fleet-street, and Simp-
kill and Marshall, who published it, a work, the same in title,
and essentially the same in substance, as that published by the
plaintiff, who bad not bet disposed of bin first edition.—
The plaintiff supported bis statement by affidal its.—lnJunction
granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII.
ITEsDAY, NOV. 5.

The Lord Chief Justice sat, according to appointment, this
day, at Westminster, to try the following prosecutions :

TIIE KING V. SIT" Esq.

This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and
corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed in au answer
put in by the defendant to a bill in Chancery.
The Solicitor-General stated, that the prosecutor carried on
business in the Island of Martinique, under the line of Bockley,
Farquharson, and Co. This prosecution arose nut of a bill tiled
in Choncery, iu 1818, relatin4 to mercantile transactions carried
on between the prosecutors and the defendant, is ho was a mer-
chant of great credit and respectability in the Island of St.
Vincent. The original bill was amended, and an answer put in
by the deft ndant ; on which thy assignments of perjury were
laid in the pl CS* it indictment, viz.-111e bill stated, that in
January, 1707, unit quest thereto, the defendant had car
fain dealings and transactions of a commercial nature relating
to West India reduce and bullion with the prosecutors.—The
defendant deities in his answer having bad any such transactions,
but was only connected with them as related to a mortgage on
the Dunfermline estate in Scotland, the property of the defen-
dant. '1 he Lill stated, that the Attendant had received 21,2001.
and 4,1801 The defendant, in his answer, admitted having re-
ceived front Farquharson, Buckley and Co. certain sums,, but
denied his receipt of the particular sums mentioned. 'llse
learned solicitor said he should he able to show that the defe\
dant had had extensive transactions with the house of the pro
weldor, through the medinm of Luis Ferries, a partner in that
house ; and that he, the defendant, stated that it would be a
matter of tecipioral advantage to open a house in London
the firm of Cheap and Lull., which suggestion was adopted, and
basin( as eartitd tin by that house to the amount of between
700,0401. and 800,0001. Now the specific fact to which
the defendant had sworn, was Isis basing had no transac-
tion% with this house prior to 1797, and that only relating
to the Duntrei line estate. Ile should, however, be able to
show, that in May, 171/6, a contract was entered into be-
tween the parties forming a partnership enga4ement to a certain
extent. The business to be chiefly conducted by Buckley and
Co. in which it was stipulated that they were to receive twos-
fifths of the profits, and the defendant three-fillbs. The ques-
ion was, whether the defendant bad given his answer with his
eyes open. anti a clear knowledge of the proCeeding. After
haviug fur days together carefully examined with great ausiety
the till and replication, he was bound to state, that be must
confine himarlt to the Mat assignment of perjury, sod abandon
hi rest.