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

4 -
REGISTER

ATIONAL
admits which were fled is &sprint of the prayer of the
petition.
Mr. Wetherell follovrel on the same side, entil he was inter-
rupted by his Lordship at half past two.
The Lord Cltaucellur said, that this was a ease which so
urgently required the earliest possible decision, that be would
plueeed wilts it again to-morrow worming. At the same time
he wished to suggest that in a case of such great delicacy there
ought to he no publication until the case should be fully heard,
winch request is isiteuded to he complied with.

.

THE N.

FRIDAY, NOV. 8.
This day Mr. Wetherell resumed his address, and after ex-
patiating on the various topics consented with the ease, con-
cluded A:tout twelve o'clock.
Mr. Shadwell also addressed the Court.
Before the Lord Chancellor left the Court, be stated, that he
would inform the bar, either to-morrow, or on Monday, on
what illy he would he prepared to give judgment iu cases in
which he has bad for some time the papers.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
NONDAV. NOV. 4.
PRACTICE OF THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO INJUNCTIONS.

COURT AND Co. I. MoIONTJoY Altp Co.
Mr. Hart moved for an injunction against the defendants
under the following circumstances Majesty is seised, in
right of the Crown, of the Forest of Dean, in Gloucestershire,
which contains much iron and coal. Any person who may be
desirous of working a mine in the forest must make application
to the King's Steward of the Forest, who, it he think lit, will
grant the person so applying a tract of land fur that purpose.--
In thOU the plaintiffs obtained the grant of a piece of ground,
and the defendants were also pat in possession of some contigu-
ous land. The respective boundaries of each tract offend were
accurately defined. The plaintiffs lately had reason to suspect
that the defendants were encroaching upon their boundaries ;
and on the 20th of Aug. they had the ground dialled, when it
appeared that the defendants had entered the boundaries of the
plaintiffs, and were about to sink a pit there in order to dis-
charge the water out e their own mine into that of th►.ir neigh-
bours, the ace of which would he the complete destruction of
the works. The injunction be applied for was to restrain the
defendants from proceeding with the construction of the pit.
The Vice Chancellor observed, that the Court was always
unwilling to issue an injunction on an experts application, male►'
the absolute necessity of the proceeding were evident. In the
present case there certainly was prima foie evidence of neces-
sity, but at the same time, if the learned consul bad reason to
believe that no irreparable mischief would from the delay
necessary in order to give the defendants notice, the Court
would not grant the injunction. but let the case stand over.
Mr. Hart said lie was informed by his clients that the most
enfortunate results would ensue to them if t►e injunction did
not immediately issue.
The Vice Chancellor said, that ander these circtimatanses,
and because the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor was not
generally known, be would grant the injunction in the present
instance.
PHONY V. NICHIOLs, DUTLERWORTH awl) °TREKS.

Mr. Wilson, on the part of the plaintiff, applied for an in-
junction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Nichols, Henry
Butterworth, and Sicepkin and Marshall. front publishing and
selling a work entitled t. A Treatise in the practice of the
Court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors."

The fasts of the case, as stated by the learned gentleman,
were as follows :—ln the year 1821, the defendant, Mr. Nichols,
an attorney, wrote the work in question, which the plaintiff,
who is a bookseller in Temple lane, undertook to publish at his
own cos'. The number of the first edition was 500 ; all of
which, with the exception of IS copies, which west to Ms.
Nichols, were to be sold for the benelit of the plaintiff. The
copywright of the work was vested in Mr. Nichols, but it was
stipulated that he should not publish a second edition, until the
whole of first had been sold. The plaintiff charged, that on
the 31st of October last, Mr. Nichols, iu violation of his agree-
ment, gave to Messrs. Butterworth, of Fleet-street, and Simp-
kin and Marshall, who published it, a work, the same in title,
and essentially the same in substance, as that published by the
plaintiff, who had not yet disposed of his first editions—
The plaintiff supported bis statement by alidavits.—lujunction
granted.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
TUMAY, NOV. 5.
The Lord Chief Justice sat, according to appointment, this
day, at Westimuster, to try the following prosecution►

THE KING H. SETON,I;4I.
This was an indictment against the defendant for wilful and
corrupt perjury, alleged to have been committed in an answer
put iu 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 firm of Buckley,
Farquharsoo, and Co. This prosecution arose out of a bill filed
in Chancery, in 1818, relating to mercantile transactions carried
on between the prosecutors sod the defendant. who was a mer-
chant of great credit and respectability in the Island of at.
Vincent. The original bill was amended, and an answer put in
by the defendant; on which the assignments of perjury were
laid in the present indictment, viz.— fhe bill stated, that i•
January, 1797, sod subsequent thereto, the defendant had ear
lain dealings and transactions of a commercial statue relating
to West India produce and bullion with the prosecutor►.—The
defendent denies 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. Ihe bill stated, that the defendant had received 21,2001.
and 4,1801 The defendant, in his answer, admitted having re-
ceived from Farquharson, Buckley and Co. certain sums, but
denied his receipt of the particular sums mentioned. The
learned solicitor said he should be able in show that the defen-
dant bad bad extensive transactions with the house of the pro-
secutor, through the medium of Luis Ferries, • partner in that
house ; and that he, the defendant, stated that it would be •
matter of reciprocal advantage to open a house in London
the firm of Cheap end Lea, which suggestion was adopted, and
business carried on by that house to the ■mount of between
700,0001. and 800,0901. Now the specific fact to which
the defendant lied sworn, was his having had no transac-
tions with this house prior to 1707, and that only relating
to the Datnftrline estate. He should, however, be able to
show, thst in May, 1796, • contraot was entered into be-
tween the parties forming a partnership engagement to a certain
extent. The business to be chiefly conducted by Buckley and
Co. in which it was stipulated that they were to receive two-
fifths of the profits, and the defendant three-fifths. The elus-
ion was, whether the defendant bad given his answer with his
eyes open, and ■ clear knowledge of the proceeding. After
having for days together carefully examined with great anxiety
the bill and replication, be was bound to state, that he must
eodne himself to the first wignmeot of perjury, and abandon
he rest.

the bill and

W. Smith, from the Si: Clerks
replication.
The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion, that the answers
given by the defendant to the interrogatories on which perjury
was assigned, were in themselves so irrelevant, that the dt
dant might not have given his answers so deliberately and cos-
siderately, as if he had considered them to be of isleruice
to the matter at issue. It would be too much ►o say this was
wilful perjury.
The Solicitor-General said, from what had fallen from his
Lordship, he should decline pressing the matter further.
The Jury, under his Lordship's directiou, immediately pre.
trounced the defendant—Not Guilty.

WEDNESDAY, NOV. 6.
This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the Judges took
their seats with the usual forms.

The returns of the convicts at the Penitentiary, Milbank,
Sheerness, Climb .m, and Portsmouth, were read.

THOMPSON P. BENSON •ND ANOTHER.
Mr. Scarlett moved for a rule to show cause why jodgmect
should not be entered for the plaintiff, notwithstanding a verdict
for the defendant bad been given in two pleas.
The second and fourth pleas were for the defendant, and the
success of his motion would depend on the opinion of the Court
respecting the validity of those pleas. It was an action of
trespass, breakiog and entering the manor of the v1.11'1,611; mot
committing certain trespasses on the river Darrow. The flint
plea set forth that a work existed within the plaintiff's macor
at beetoo, for the preservation ul the river, and on the refusal
of the plaintiff to repair the said work. the defendant f utereu Ifs
do the necessary repairs. Thin fourth plea was the saute in sub-
stance, and Mr. Scarlet( contended both were bad.
The Court granted a rule to shew cause, but wished the
question to be put in the form of a special cue.
Mr. Blackburn moved for a writ of ftlandrmus, commanding
the Arch Deacon of the Arch Deaconry of York to swear in a
person, named Daniel Hale, to the office of Chapel Warden.
The application was made on affidavit, stating that the pima
had been elected to the office according to custom, and the
Arch Deacon refused to swear him to the office. The Conti
granted the writ.

IN THE MATTER OF GEMIGE JAQUIA.
Mr. Brougham moved for the judgment of the Court on the
defendant, declared guilty in the Master's report of having,
practised as an attorney in the name of one Thoekery, en attot-
ney, contrary to the provisions of de 22d of George 11.
Mr. Brougham, one former day, brought the matter before
the Court, and the Judges referred it to the Master, who decided
chiefly on the following fact. It was stated that Thickery re-
ceived from Jaques a guinea a week fur permission to practise
in his name.. The charge was denied, but a book ens produced,
in which entries bad been made of the money alleged to bate
been paid. On the motion of the Master, Thackety was struck
oat the Rolls of the Court, and Jaques in this instauce appeal t d
to recei►e punishment for having exercised the right of ■u
attorney. The affidavits Mowed a series of acting by Jaques,
in the name of Mockery, for his own benefit.
The defendant appeared is Court.
Chief Jmitioe—You are the person named Jaques t —Yes,
my lewd.
Are you aware of the application that is made alpine. you ?
Yes.

Then you are to show cause why the Court should oot

•it you.
The defendant wished to have a long written defence read.
Chief Justice—Have you any bedavits ?
The defendant acid lie had very long affidavits, and be wu
led to believe the Court. could not get thr. ugh them that day
He complained that it had bee■ referred to the Master. It
wu an alleged offence arising out of a particular statute, and
the Court ought to have decided it.
Mr. Brougham said, the defendant's Counsel, Mr. Surfeit,
consented to go before the Muter.
Chief Justice—There is no doubt this Court, in the examina-
tion ofa matter of feet, could proceed by reference to the AI eater,
Mr. Brougham then directed the attention of the Court to
the facts proved before the :Suter.
The Lord Chief Justice observed, that the Coart ought ta
have the book before them wheel' the Master bad examined.

Mr. Brosgliani then suggested :hat the matter might I.
brought on again epos motion when the book was in Court.
The Lord ChiefJustice—Let it stand over till to-morrow.

Jails. woo owds.red so 'Mod to-morrow.

Mr. Justice Hoiroyd took his pest this morning in the Bail
Court, sod a great number of actions were jubtified without op-
position.

Re YOONS att. BLACHFORD.

Mr. Walford addressed his Lordship at considerable length,
and submitted that the bail could not be allowed to justify, fur
the following reasons the first place there had been a
change of attorneys since the commeucemot of the amine, ai.d
in the next place it was • bail by Habeas Corpus, and the writ
ought to be annexed to the bail piece ; be submitted that the
present attorney had no right to the returns, his name not being
affixed to the proceedings connected with the cense of action.
His Lordship ordered the writ of Habeas Corpus to he ft tcLed,
ia order to ascertain whether be had that jurisdiction which 31r.
Walford contended was nut tested in bun, because if he bad
not that power he should be admistering ao unlawful oath.
In the course of the morning the writ of Habeas Corpus was
produced, when Mr. Watford contended, that it ass nut pr.-
cared by legitimate means.
Mr. Justice Holroyd said, that although the learned gentle-
man (Mr. Walford) doubted bin power, be should exercise it
on this occasion, and proceed to justification.
Mr. Walford said, that if such was Lis Lordship's determi-
nation, he should not oppose the bail, as his objection rested ou
pointa of furor which the Court had ever-ruled.

TIIE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF VIII T. CIIANIPNEYS,
BART: V. aIESSITER, GENT.

This was an idictineut tricd at the last Assizes for Somerset.
for attempting to induce witnessea to swear falsely, in au action
of defamation, on which the defendant had been found guilt.
Mr. Scarlett this day mused for • rule to show cause why
there should not be • sew trial, or an arrest of judgment. In
his opinion, the Court would hardly think it worth wile to
grant a new trial.
-nil-Court granted • rule to drew cause.
Mr. 'attains, the prosecutor's Counsel, then said, be was
instruct to more for the judgment of the Court on the deten-
dant. but ftrr w hot had occurred be should consent to his
being hale on his own recognizance to appear when called on.

THE RING v. &MITI!.

Mr. Brougham moved fur leave to file a criminal infatuation
against John Smith, a person residing at Appleby, in the county
of Weitmoreland, for outrageous conduct to Mr. Thus. Brigga,
Deputy Sheriff* and Jud,t,e of the County Court, aino residing
at Appleby. The application wkr invie on the affidavit of Mr.
Briggs, detailiag the circumstances. Mr. Briggs was bolding
11l County Court at Appleby, in August last. On that (mamas