The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-19 00:00:00

on the occasion was so unanimous upon these points, CHAN CER,Y CO U,RI '--(TFIIS DAY.)
that the meeting lasted but a few minutes, and
NICHOLSON v. F OSTER .
without other results. The LORD CHANCELLOR gat .0 jud gmcnt to day in
The general impression was that a moderate Ca-
this case, on which the bill was i fled for the purpoe of
taking the accounts of a par'tner'ship of a coppersmith
binet would be formed about the 15th, under the
arid still trade. The princip;rl question in the case
Presidency of ARRAZOLA, now the oracle of the was whether in taking the partnersh. ip accounts, Messrs.•
,
Camarilla, and that the decree for the dissolution Williams and Sons, who were partner: in the coppersmith
trade were also to be considered pa rtners in a patent
v would be at once published. It was discovered,
still which had been manufactured I.) the partnership.
directed however, that the discontented were tampering His Lordship the accounts t o be taken upon
with the army, and that a disposition to renew the the principle that Williams and Sons w. ere not partners
scenes of La Granja was pretty general among the lin the patent.
common soldiery.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DA x.)

The Warwick Advertiser, of Saturday, has some ani-
madversions on a letter of Mr. Cleave, and on some re-
marks in The Sun, relative to the treatment of Lo-
vett in Warwick gaol. Our respectable Contempo-
rary treats the subject with so much candour, and in
so good a spirit, that it is hardly necessary for us to
reply. He must, however, allow us to call him the
defender of the Magistrates who treat political priso-
ners with needless and injurious severity, by refusing
them animal food. If the Visiting Magistrates had
the will, they could find the way. As regards the conduct
of the Chaplain, we cannot reconcile the two statements.
The one is that " the Chaplain did not feel himself
justified in freely allowing, on his own responsibility,
the admission of " Tait's Magazine," and the other,
that there was no such refusal. Putting aside the su-
perincumbent phraseology, the first sentence is as pre-
cise as the last, and leaves no doubt that the Magazine
was refused by the Chaplain, and that the only chance
Mr. Lovett had of seeing it was through the kindness of
those tender-hearted Magistrates who feed a prisoner
five days in the week on bread and gruel, and potatoes,
and who, of course, would disregard the disallowance of
the Chaplain for the sake of gratifying Lovett with the
perusal of a Radical publication. We will bet our Con-
temporary five hundred to one that the Magistrates
took the cue from the Chaplain. The word " ever"
in the sentence relative to his confinement in the
Infirmary, was inserted from inadvertence, but with
perfect good faith, for we firmly believed from Mr.
Cleave's letter that Lovett, " having been for a long
time in a delicate state of health, previous to his
trial," had been confined in the Infirmary ever since his
imprisonment. We willingly make this admission, and
we only wish the candour of our Contemporary had led
him to make a similar admission relative to the refusal
of the Chaplain, or left him and the Magistrates to de..
fend themselves.

Consent petitions and short causes occupied the
Court the entire morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

BENTLEY V. FOSTER.

The arguments in this case, which were commenced.
yesterday, were concluded to-day. The case came
before the Court upon motion to dissolve an injunction
restraining the defendant, the proprietor of a publica-
tion entitled " The Novelist," from publishing in
that pamphlet any part of the celebrated Romance
called " The Headsman," written by Mr. F. Cooper.
The injunction which it was now sought to dissolve,
had: been granted by the Court during. the font;
vacation, upon an application ex parte. That ap-
plication on behalf of pltaintiff was founded upon an
agreement, entered into between Mr. Cooper and himself,
by which the former agreed to give the copyright of his
works in this country to the former.
Mr. WIGRAM, on behalf of the applicant contended
that Mr. Cooper being an American, and the work
having been written in that country, Mr. C Doper could ,
not have any copyright in his works here, and
therefore could not transnfer that right to the plaintiff.
Mr. K. BRUCE and Mr. JACOBS, in support of the in-
junction, submitted that although Mr. Cooper was an
American, yet by the copyright laws of this country be
would be protected, and that the contract entered into .
between himself and the plaintiff, being a contract
entered into in this country was valid, and would,
therefore, be enforced both in law and equity here.
Mr. JACOBS having addressed the Court this morn-
ing, and Mr. WIGRAM having replied,
His HONOUR said the only question for him to de-
termine was what now should be done with the injunc-
tion. It was a matter of course, if the defendant re-
quired that the plaintiff should bring an action
to try whether any legal injury had been
committed upon him by what the defendant had done.
His Honour considered that there was no weight what-
ever in the argument that there had been a violation of
the legal rights of the plaintiff. It was clear to the
mind of the Court that what was mainly intended by the
Copyright Act was to protect the first publication of any
work in this country, and if a foreigner chose first to pub-
lish any work that he wrote in this country, that very
act gave him the benefit of the statute. His Honour
considering the plaintiff to have a clear legal right, felt
I bound to continue the injunction until it was determined
by action whether or no that right had been invaded.
Mr. K. BRUCE said his client would undertake to
bring an action within three weeks to try that question.
—lnjunction continued.