The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

BEER. AND WARD.

Mr. WETHERELL asked whether his Lordship would go on
with Beer and Ward to-morrow, as Lord Portsmouth's case
would not come on ? They had sent their case to the Attorney
General, but the other side had not sent theirs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.-1,4 it stand for the next mo-
tion day—Thursday next. Would . you be able. to go on •to-
morrow, or are the Gentlemen from the Common Law Courts
engaged in the Cambridge election ?
Mr. SHADWELL said it Was he who was next to address his
Lordship.
Mr. HEALD hoped they would not'be prevented from going
to Cambridge.
The LORD CRANOELLOR.—I 'should be sorry t6' prevent
any Gentleman from going to Cambridge, bp it to vote for whom
he will.—lt is better to take it on Thursday.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov.. 25,
BRYBON.V. WHITT:FIELD.

Mr. HEALD, on the part of the plaintiff, stated that this bill
was filed for the specific performance of AD agreement under the
following circumstances :—The plaintiff; who. was a dyer resid-
ing in London, agreed to sell his business to the defendant for
a consideration of POW., and' also to communicate a certain
secret in the. Art of dying for a further consideration of 1,000/.
the plaintiff binding himself not to divulge the secret, or make
any use of it, or to carry on the business, of a dyer in London
for 20 years. When the deeds of agreement came to be drawn
up, the defendant refused to sign them, unless the plaintiff
would submit to certain terms which were not originallystated.
The plaintiff, under these circumstances, applied to the Court
to compel the specific performance of the ,agreement.
Mr. BELL, for the' defendant, said, that his client ought not
in equity be cbmpelled to perform the agreement, because he
had been deceived as to ihe benefits which he expected from it.
The plaintiff could not in law bind himself generally not to carry
on a trade, and if he were bound only locally, he, might, from
the peculiar nature of the business, establish himself at Nor-
wich, or any 'other place, and -compete with the defendant as
effectually in the London market as if he lived in. the metropolis.
The VICE-CDANCELLOR was of opinion that a man might
bind himself generally from making use of a secret in business -
he therefore decreed that the agreement must be carried, into ef-
fect, and that it be referred to the Master to draw it up.

COURT etiICIXO'S PENCIL, N0v.25.
THE KING v. THE PILE-eirAscrumit OF THE UNIVER

SITY
.0F: cAMBRIDGE.

In a former term, a rule wasiobtained, calling on the Vice_
Chancellor of the University of Cambridge,to show cause why
a mandamus should, not issue, commanding to admit Mr. Jeph-
son to be Professor of. Minendggy in the University, to which
office it was alleged that he had been duly elected on the death
of Dr. Clarke. , • - "

Mr. Serjeant LENS, Mr. LITTLEDALE, and Mr. ALDER-
SON, showed cause 'Against the rule. Before entering into the
great question in dispute between the two parties, relative to
:the mode in which the election of Professors should he con-
ducted, they took two preliminary objections to the pro-
ceeding by mandanius. First, they • contended that the
Professorship was not an office of such a description as would
warrant the interference of the Court; and secondly, that even
supposing the office, simply considered, was the subject of
such a proceeding, the proper course of the applicant was, not
to move the Court,'but to appeal to the King as a visitor of the
University in Council. On the first point, they argued that
the professorship of mineralogy was no office conferring per-
manent emolument, but merely a title of honour incidentally
productive of certain benefits. It was not of ancient date, for it
had no existence before it was specially conferred on Dr.
.Clarke; nor was there
,any salary which the Professor could
claim. Dr. Clarke, indeed, received 1001. a year from his .51a-.
jesty, which was granted annually by Parliament, but in which
no one could obtain a permanent interest, as it was liable at any
time to be discontinued, and, indeed, it was-not improbable that
some member of the House of Commons, bent on economy,would
insist that it should be withheld. Its profits arose from the volun-
tary attendance of members of the .University on the lectures of
the Professor,for which they gave him a compensation ; but it did
not even confer the right of delivering lectures, for Dr. Clarke
had lectured before he received the title • and other persons,
although doubtless liable to inhibition, had at various times de''
livered lectures without any title or direct sanction. The office,
then, was analogous to that of a lecturer of a parish, where there
was no endowment or fixed Salary, but the party chosen by the
parishioners was compensated by their voluntary subscriptions ;
in which case the Court had always refused to interfere. Here,
then, there was no lasting interest—no profit essentially and
parmanently resulting from the office—nothing but a mere
title of honour, attended with fluctuating advantages of which it
might be rendered destitute; and this, upon the principle of
all the cases, was not an office to which the Court would compel
admission. In the next place, it was clear that there was a
Court competent to hear and determine the complaint, to which
no application had been made, in which no reluctance to hear
the case was suggested; and to which, therefore, the party
seeking redress ought to apply. It was a Court pecculiarly
fitted. to determine the case, because it could decide on the
whole at once ; whereas the Court of King's Bench must hear the
mandamus and quo 'warrant° separately, and if' they refused to
interfere on behalf of one party, might again be called to decide
on the validity of the election of another. Former appeals had
been made, when
.differences arose in the University (rarely it
was admitted, for the occasions were rare), to the King in
Council, and there they had been heard and decided. It was.
the evident purpose of the statutes of the University, to keep
its members from submitting disputes to Courts of Law, by
providing tribunals where academical questions of right and of
discipline might more properly be decided. This case, there-
fore, on the final determination of which the mode of electing
the five Professors would depend, ought not to have been
brought before a Court of Law by motion for mandamus, while
there was another Court peculiarly adapted to the discussion,
and willing to hear it. Besides, it did not appear that Mr.
Jephson himself had promoted the application, for he had made
no affidavit ; and the case was brought before the Court by a
stranger.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Mr. TINDAL replied, that
it was true Mr. Jephson, who was now at Cambridge, had
made no affidavit; but it was stated that he was elected—that
he firesented himself to the 'Vice-Chancellor, for admission, and
was refused—and that he had adopted every legal means of ob-
taining adthission in vain.
The Co t.t fur intimated that they could not entertain any mo-
tion for mandamus to admit to an office, unless the party on
whose behalf the application was made swore that he had
been desirous of being admitted to the office, that he was
still desirotis of admission, and that if admitted he would
execute its duties.. , Without such an affidavit, it would be
wasting the time of the Court to proceed farther.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his hope that in a
Case of so great importance lie Should mot be precluded by the
omission, but allowed an opportunity. of obtaining the affidavit
of Mr. Jephson, which he could obtain on Wednesday.
Mr. Serjeant LENS expressed his readiness to consent that.
the case should stand Onto allow for the production of Mr.
Jephson's affidavit.
The Somciion-GthanlaL wished it to be understood, that

he did not undertake that such an affidavit would be made by
Mr. Jephson.—The case was then postponed tilt Wednesday.
DI THE MATTER, OF RADFORD A SHERIFF'S OFFICER.
On a former day Mr. COOPER made application to the Court
on behalf of a person named Wood, against a Sheriff's officer,
named Radford, on the ground that the officer had taken much
larger sums from Wood, while in his custody at .a lock-up-
house, than are allowed by law. It was then referred to the
Master to ascertain whether any and what extortion had been
committed.
The Master now appeared ivith his report, which he read.
He stated that in his opinion Radford had taken of Wood, who
was six weeks in his custody, 211. 13s. 6d. more than he could
legally receive ; and that, on the investigation before him, Rad-
ford had pursued a line of conduct calculated to mislead him in
forming his decision.
The COURT adverted to the power given them by the sta-
tute, not only to order restitution, but to punish the offending
officer; and this power they now felt called on to exercise.
They therefore ordered that Radford should pay to WOod the
sum of 211. 13s. 6d., and the costs of the application to be
taxed as between attorney and client; and that he should fur-
ther pay a fine of 251. to the. King, and be committed to the
custody of the Marshal until the sums of 211.135. 6d., and 251.
should be paid.