The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 4.
THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, upon coming into Court at 10
a'clock, addressed Mr. HORNE, who was the only Counsel
within the bar, and stated, that he had red the•affidavit of'the
medical gentleman, and that he felt he should be obliged to the
Counsel in the Cause, if they would read the Affidavits again
before proceeding further. He wished to know, too, whether
the contents of the affidavit which he had last read, had been
communicated to-the other parties.
Mr. HonsE said he could give no answer to his Lordship.
The Loan CHANCELLOR.—The question was, whether
that affidavit should not be communicated to them, and their
answer filed, before he should proceed further. Affidavits had
been filed on the authority, in fact, of the party himself. Now,
when his state of mind was considered, it was extraordinary
that the affidavit of the medical man did not say that he had
had any conversation on that subject. There were other affi-
davits in the cause, and important ones, but the question was
now whether the Court ought not to have answers filed before
proceeding to the subject fixed for to-morrow. There are al-
legations which ought at least to be denied before any further
proceeding should be adopted.
Mr. HORNE said he had nothing to say upon that point.—
He begged only to mention the circumstance, that Mr. Skirrow,
whom he' did not mean to speak of with disrespect, had been
acquainted with Lady Portsmouth for nine months before she
had left Edinburgh, and never hinted that Lord Portsmouth
was insane.

The LORD CHANCE L Lon.— The question was very painful.
He was not applied to for a Habeas Corpus, or to direct any
proceedings, hut to ascertain what ►state of mind the party was
in, with the View of deciding whether he could be the object
or not of a certain proceeding. The party was not to be dis-
turbed by resorting to ;Aim or examining him ; he wished that
to be attended to; but he did not mean to state that access was
to be refused to the medical man. He (the Lord Chancellor)
was in possession of all the circumstances, and he therefore
knew that the conclusion in the affidavit inferred a great deal
more than actual sanity, without information of the circum-
stances. He meant no disrespect to the medical gentleman. It
was most painful to deal with this case. He would thank the
Counsel if they would mention the subject before he left the
Court, as he must do before one.
Nothing of importance occurred afterwards ; nor was the
Portsmouth cause mentioned again. His Lordship left the
Court soon after 12, saying he had to meet the Lord Mayor.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 4.

PRACTICE OF THE: COURT WITH RESPECT TO INJUNC,

TIONS.
COURT AND CO. V. MOUNTJOY AND CO.

Mr. HART moved for an injunction against the defendants
under the following circumstances :—His Majesty is seized, 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, if he think fit, will
I grant the person so applying a tract of land for that purpose.—
In 1800 the plaintiffs obtained the grant of a piece of ground,
and the defendants also were put into possession of some con-
tiguous 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 boun-
daries ; and on the 20th of August they had the ground dialled,
when it appeared that the defendants had entered the bounda-
ries of the plaintiff's, and were about to sink a pit there in order
to discharge the water out of their own mine into that of their
neighbours', the effect of which would be the complete de-
struction of the works. The injunction he applied for was to
restrain the defendants from proceeding with the construction
of the pit.
The Vier-CtiANcEnton: observed, that the Court was al-
always unwilling to issue an injunction on an ex-parte applica-
tion, unless the absolute necessity of the proceeding were evi.
dent. In the present case there certainly was prima facie evi-
dence of necessity, but at the same time, if the Learned Coun-
sel had reason to believe that no irreparable mischief would
ensue from the delay necessary in order to give the defendants
notice, the Court would not grant the injuction, but let the case
stand over. The Lord Chancellor had lately established a cus-
tom which was unknown to his predecessors—namely, that of
directing an injunction to stand over until the defendant received
notice of the motion. This practice he (the Vice-Chancellor)
was desirous-of following, because he knew that frequently the
desire to prevent irrep.arable mischief being done to a plaintiff;
caused irreparable mischief to be inflicted upon a defendant.—
The Court, therefore, in future, would expect, that on an ap-
plication for an injancton, it should appear upon affidavit
either that there had not been time, or that it would have been
dangerous to give the defendant notice, otherwise the motion
would be refused.
Mr. HART said he was informed by his clients that the most
unfortunate results would ensue to them if the injunction did
not immediately issue.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that under these circum-
stances, and because the rule laid down by the Lord Chancellor
was not generally known, he would grant the injunction in the
presentinstance.
PHENY V. NICHOLS, BUTTERWNITIT, AND OTHERS.
Mr. IVILSON, on the part of the plaintiff; applied for an in-
junction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Nichols, Henry
Butterworth, and. Simpkin and Marshall, from publishing and
selling a work entitled a " Treatise on the Practice of the Court
for the Relief of Insolvet Debtors."

The facts of the case, as stated by the Learned Gentleman,
were as follow :—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
cost. The number of the first edition was 500 ; all of which,
with the exception of 18 copies, which went to Mr. Nichols,
were to be sold for the benefit of the plaintiff. The copyright
of the work was vested in Mr. Nicholls, but it was stipulated
that he should not publish a second edition, until the whole of
the first liad been sold. The plaintiff charged that on the 31st
of October last, Mr. Nichols, in violation of his agreement,
gave to Messrs. Butterworth of Fleet-street, and Simpkin and
Marshall, who published it, a work, the same in title, and es.
sentially the same in substance, as that published by the plain-
tiff, who had not yet disposed of his first edition. The plain-
tiff supported his statement by affidavits.—lnjunction granted.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 4.
STEERS V. HEATHFIELD AND ANOTHER.

This was an issue directed by the VICE-CHANCELLOR to
try the validity of a petitioning creditor's debt, upon which a
commission a bankruptcy was founded against Mr. Holding,
late a wine-merchant, in the month of August, 1821. In sup-
port of the petitioning crediorys debt, and the act of bankruptcy
on the part of Holding, two witnesses were examined, who de-
posed to the facts.
On the other side it was contended at comiderable length,
that the petitioning creditor's debt was assumed for a collusive
object ; because, when a former commission of bankrupt (after-
wards supeeseded) was issued against the same party, the pre-
sent petitioning creditor did not then claim to be a creditor upon
the estate.

The Jury found a verdict in favour of the validity of the pe-
titioning creditor's debt, and consequently in support of the
commission.

ARCHES COURT, Nov. 4.

This being the first day of the Civil Law Term, the Dean
of the Arches heard prayers read in the dining-room of the
Common Hall, the Judge himself and the Advocates being in
their full scarlet robes, according to the form annually observed
on these occasions.

Dr. J. T. PICARDE, Fellow of New College, Oxford, was
introduced into (3ourt, between his Majesty's Advocate (Sir
Christopher Robinson) and Dr. Arnold, and having been by
them, presented to the Judge, the latter admitted him, in obe.'
dience to the receipt of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an
advocate in his Grace's Court of Arches.