The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-08 00:00:00

1,0 Y D'S 5
LONDON, FEB.

EB 7 - , 11, ro ne, Also z Boy.
YARmot:TH ISLE uF WidHT,. FEB. 7.—Wind S.—
Ed. 6:h, 11€.ro t-,:ce, New Orleatic

HI PPING.—(T
ni),ll

8.-

IS D Y.)
'., light breeze

A RG ATE

PLY.MOCTII. FEB. 7th, Susanna,
Splnf.y. New South Wales; British Empire, ditto; Age-
• .

nuria, ditto

BRISTOL, FEB. 7.—Wind S.W.--Sld. Egypt, Per-
nambuco. .Arrd. Clyde; Victory, Potter, Calcutta.
SCILLI, FEB. 5.—A boat marked " Sharon, Dart.
in,nith, Edward Fox," was picked up, 31 inst., in the
Island of Sampson, gripes apparently cut. _ _

. . _
SHIELDS.—The New Concord, of jid•from Sunderland
to London, which got on the rocks, 30th ult., has been
got off and towed in. •
LIVERPOOL, FEB. 7.—Wind W.--7th, Arrd. Remac,
Mounaey, Arica; Ann Bridgon, Bragg, Islay; Em•
peror, Brown, New Orleans; Emblem, Cannett, Mobile;
Broosa, Soule, Wilmington, United States. Sld. Rhon-
da, Pernambuco; Manchester, Bahia; Aarifa, Vera
Cruz; Dean, Vera Cruz; Clinton, Mobile; Sea King,
Savgunah; Ivanhoe, New York; Liverpool, New York;
Atlas, New York; Mary Ann; Boston. Off port, Regu-
lus, Mararham.

FALMOUTH, FEB. G.—Wind W.S.W.-6th, Arrd.
Indian, English, Auckland, New Zfmland ; Onderneming,
Rickmers, Rio Jancirc. 7th, Sld. Express Packet,
214deirri, &c.

. .
POOLE. FEB. 6.—Put back, George Kiffen, for New-
"oundland from Lisbon—out 73 dais.
DEAL, FEB 7.—Wind W.N.W. to N. W. and W.—

7th, Arrd. from the River, Ellerslie Graves, Adelaide,
South Australia; John Willis, Gibson, Demerara; In-
vestigator, Dunlop, Madras and Calcutta. Arrd. from
the River and aid. Penelope, Ledg.er, St. Thomas; Ann
Eliz ooh, St. Taomas; Harfrouw, Charleston. Sld,
Chantey Castle, Sydney, New South Wales; Ellerslie,
Adelaide, South Australia; Amelia, Mulholland, Brazils;
Galatea, Rio Janeiro; John. Willis, Demerara; Mar-
garita, Antigua.

DUBLIN, FEB. 6.—The Huma, Pratt, for New York,
when being towed out by. the Adeline tug, sth instant ,
got foul of her, and did considerable damage.
BELFAST, FEB. 6.—The Bertrand, of and for Boston,
United States, from Liverpool, which put in here 4th
instant, was run on shore yesterday, near Carrickfergus,
on suspicion of the cargo being on fire, but nothing is
known up to this time.
SUNDERLAND, FEB. 7.—Sld. 6.h, Pelham, Barbadoes;
Gratitude. New York.

SHIELDS, FEB. 6.—Cumberland, Carthagena and
Quebec; Jane Boyd. Valparaiso.

MARKET NE Ws.--( THIS DAY.)

Zsr 14NIX GILT= D LBELDE ATHA. z,3,_
These markets were fairly supplied with each kind ci
Meat this morning, the sale for which was tolerably steady,
at our quotations. Beef, from 2s 6d to 3s 6d; Mutton, 3s 4d
to 4s 6d; Veal, 3s 8d to 4s 10d; and Pork, 3s 4d to 4s 6d
per 81bs by the carcase.

MEAT MAILICETS.
SounrALL, FEB. 7.—Prime Beasts, Sheep, and Calves
commanded steady sale, at full rates of currency. In other
kinds of stock comparatively little was doing. Beef, from 3s
4d to 4s ; Mutton, 3s 8d to 4s 8d ; Veal, 4s to 4s 6d ; and
Pork, 33 8d to 4s 6d per 81bs, to sink the offal.
Bo➢IFORD, FEB. 7.—We had a steady trade to-day, and
last week's prices were well supported. Beef, from 3s 2d to
4s; Mutton, 3s 10d to 4s 10d; Veal, 3s 10d to 4s 8d; and
Pork, 3s 6d to 4s 4d per Sibs. Suckling Calves, 18s to 245;
Quarter-old S ore Pigs, 16s to 21s each.

LEWIS, FEB. 6.—deef, from 3s 4d to 4s 2d; Mutton, 4s to
ss; Veal, 4s to 4s 6d ; and Pork, 3s lid to 4s 2d per Sibs.
A moderate supply and a steady demand.

atsx

SMITHFIELD.—Meadow Hay, 21 lOs to 3113 s ; Clover ditto,
3/ lOs to 4/ 13s ; and Straw, IL 2s to 11 9s per load. Supply
moderate, and trade dull.

CUMBERLAND.—Meadow Hay, 21 12s to 3/ 14s; Clover
ditto, 31 10s to 4/ 10s; and Straw, 11 4s to 1110 s. per load.
A steady demand, at full prices.
WHITECHAPEL. —Meadow Hay, 21 103 to 31125; Clover
ditto, 31 les to 41 16s; and S:raw, 1/ 3s to 1/ 9s per load.
A fair average supply, and a sluggish demand.

CuRN AVERAGES.
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN '
or the Week ended Feb. 8.1848, made up from the Returns of the
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towas in Ragland and Wale/
per Imperial Quarter.
I I
I WHEAT. BARLEY.' OATS. RTE. BEANS. I PEAS.
PRICE .. I 453 Id I 28s 10d I 16s lid 28s 5d 30s 3d 325 611
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
WHEAT. BARLEY. I OATS. I BYE. 1 BEANS.
Is Od is Od is Od Is Od is Od

PEAL
Is 011

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor resumed his sittings to-day, in
the Old, hall, Lincoln's-inn, and his Lordship having
appointed this morning for giving judgment in the appeal
notion in the case of his Royal Highness Prince Albert
v. Strange, thy. Hall was considerably crowded at an
early hour. llis Lordship took his seat shortly laser
10 o'clock.

THE ROYAL ETCHINGS.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT V. STRANGE.

JUDGMENT.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, upon taking his Sea.
proceeded to give judgment on this case, which our
readers will recollect came before his Lordship in the
course of last term upon appeal from the decision of.
Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce refusing to dissolve an
injunction he had Granted cx parte in October last, re-
straining the defendant, Mr. btrauge, the eminent pub-
lisher, carrying on business in Paternoster-roev, his
agents, servants, and workmen, from exhibiting
a certain gallery, or collection of etchings, by
her Majesty and his Royal highness Prince Albert.
end from making or permitting to be made any engrav-
ing or impressions from them, or selling them, or pub-
lishi( g a descriptive catalogue of them. His Lordship
in giving judgraient, said that the importance attaching
to the case arose in consequence of the exalted station of
the plaintiff, and not from any difficulty which
was presented in the case itself. Cases in-
volving similar principles had arisen before and.
had been decided. An injunction had been sought and
obtuiued restraining the defendant from publishing and
printing certain etchings and a catalogue of them, and
the Learned Judge in the Court below who had grantee,
the injunction having refused upon application to him to
dissolve it, the case had been brought before this branch
tit the Court upon appeal from that decision. The dee
fenuant (ad not deny the facts stated in the affidavits )0
support of the application tor the injunction, and there'
tore the cwe might so far be considered clear, and with-
out difficulty. His Lordship considered that the 00,11
question he had to decide was, not whether the defendant
had the right to publish the etchings, for it was not
denied that he had not, but whether he hid a right to
print and publish the catalogue. Now, it was stated in
the catalogue that copies of the etchings weal',
be furnished to the subscribers, and as tile;
' could not be done without the knowledge and
approbation of the plaintiff, it was manifest
that the defendant held out a false representation to the
public. In his Lordship's opinion, as all manufacturers
were pro:ected from having their goods sold by other
parties under a false pretence, so in the case of works 0f
art of the description of those involved in the present
case, the same right existed. The affidavits in the case
as welt as the answer showed that the etchings were the
work of the plaintiff, and from their very nature it wel
clear they were not intended for indiscriminate publics"
Lion; and therefore, when the defendant, bysurreptitiotle
means obtained impressions of them, he must, is his
Lordship's opinion, have known that the publication'ot
them was not authorised by the plaintiff It appeared
froth the affidavits in the case that some of the plates or
impressions were given to a person named Brown, epreater at Windsor, and that through a person, named
Middleton, who was in Brown's employ, Judge 05.
tamed them, and gave them to the defendant Strange'
In his Lordship's opinion, the case, as stated in the
affidavits, was not met by the answer, and yet
the defendant persisted that he was entitled
to publish those works. It was contended, on the pert
of the defendant that there existed nu property is the
plaintiff, so as to enable the Court, upon his application,
to restrain the defendant from publishing a description
or catalogue of the etchings. The property of an autlic!r
or composer in his works could not be disputed, and 111°.
Lordship saw no difference or distinction between the;
ease and the present. In the case of dramatic compositil
for instance, injunctions had been frequently obtained, so ~
so also in the case of Abernethy'sLectures, and if in tai;
case the property existed in the author it must also e%is;
in the author or manufacturer of any other work; Ye,
that was, what the defendant disputed, although by ,
strange contradiction he admitted that the etching
were the property of the plaintiff. It was not neee°;
sail for his Lordship, in his opinion, to decide es 1
What extent an injunction would issue from this Coa$
to is strain a party from translating, making extracts, et
t
criticising works, because it dad not apply to the presen,
case. Upon the question of property his Lordship wee
clearly of opinion that the exclusive right of printing
publishing, or otherwise disposing of these works sl'
vested in the plaintiff, and that the defendant had tleo
right whatever to interfere with that property. But the
.
present case did not depend on property alone. t a
etchings were surreptitiously and fraudulently obtailleo,
and the defendant must have known from the very nbe
lure of the works that there could be no intention oo tet
part of the plaintiff to publish them. To this no ansve- 0
tied been made. The etchings had been obtained bYO
breach of trust on the part of Brown, or that of a Pets
of
named Middleton, and it was clearly a breach to
LI ust on the part of the defendant and Judge so
publish or make any use of them. That such lief
the case had been clearly laid down in the case
e
" The Duke of Queensbury v. Sheldon;" and in theca on
of " Abernethy'e Lecture," Lord Eldon had laid ue to
the doctrine that a legal possession, without referenefol
the question of property, was of itself sufficient grirfitb
for an injunction. His Lordship agreed entireiX.,",loll
the doctrine laid down by the Vice-Chancellor Wi.lbtse,
in the case of a clerk in a merchant's counting'llef the
or banking-house, who, having access to the books nos;
firm, made use of that information lo acquired by, lob
he agieed with the 'Vice-Chancellor
that in such a case there was in the court a power ,7iied
'strain the use of the information, and if the court had
had
such a power in that case; he could not see NOV is the
it not in the present, which was analagous to it. ; and
case of a physician, who kept a diary of the saying,,t be
and acts of George 111., it was decided tl'kitig.
could nut publish that diary during the life of &icit it
"[here were some minor points in the case w Wuboood
was uuuecessary fur him dun to refer, but he felt the
the
to make one or two observations with referenee, 004
argument, that the plaintiff had not a right wrf the
was not the author of some of the etchings.
_la be
defendant had any interest in them that weudsbe
a question which would deserve the consideration pees'
Court, but as he had no such interest it wes_gurli:ji
wiry to offer any opinion upon that subject. x°_ refuse
reasons he had stated, his Lordship felt bound w
the a
Th e
es
pplication with costs. • oir
rult et this decision is to continue th
M e saps
: all
tion, and to affirm the judgment a the Vac(
--
Knight Bruce refusing to dissolve it.