The Sun.
London, England, 1814-01-22 00:00:00

EAST IND! A HOUSn,

.
Yesterday a meetiag o:. the Directors and Prw-
prictOrs took place at 'the East fotlia
Nome .Conversation havilig taken place upon the,
prO;a.iety• of postponing 'the consideration' of a
titiestion whieli.stood'•qor the day, respecting the
subject of admitting any Proprietors to who
bad not undergone certain foims observed In the
establishment, it was eventually 'settled. Ufa*► a
postponement, of that . question to the 13d of
March should take place..
GRANT TO -GENERAL SIR T., HISLOP.
The Court proceeded to the
,subject c,f the re-
solution, granting 3,3001. to General 'Sir T.
islop, for, losses sustained by hifn in consequence
of being cjiptitred by-an American frigate, on his
passage to i;otxnty, of which place-he' had been.
-appointed Conimander-in-Chief,
• The resolution having been read, Mr. Si7arrri
Made same otiservAtiOns which we could not dis-
tinctly hear-, and was followed by Mr. LOwtcoeS,
who objected to the resolution as, one that haft
been smuggled through the Cobrt at a time when'
there was a very small atterttlarice of Propffictors,
anti but four Directors.
he CHAIRMAN (Mr. R.. Thornton) said, before
thecourt-went any further In' debating the reso...
lotion, lie should beg leave to read a letter from
General Hislop. That letter had been taken into'
consideration by the Directors,and the result of
that consideration
.was, that instead of the grant
of :.1,,3001: the sum of 1,500/. should- be. voted to
the General. The letter stated, that General HIS-
-14 had been promoted to the situation of
Cunt-
mans.ler in Chief of Madras, a situation More prO-
fitable than that to which he had been before ap-
pointed, and-,in consequence of the increase of
profit he thought it his duty to call upon the Court
to reconsider the grant, for the purpose of dimi-
nishing it. The Chairman proposed-to withdraw
the former resolution, and to move a resolution,
granting 1,300/. to the General. •
Aldermen •ATKiiisisubmitted to the Court, that
It would be necessary-to have the niost 'complete
information upon the circumstances attending the
first propOsed grant,
,and the object of with-
drawing it before any second measure was re-
sorted to.
,

The CHAIRMAN said, that one of the -reasons
why the reduction of the grant was in contempla-
tion, arose froth the.appointment of General His
lop to be Commander-in-Chief of MadrEfs, Which
was a situation above that of Bombay as to pecu-
niary'emolument. ' •
Mr. Smrra objected to this
_mod6 of proceed-
ing... The precedent he considered highly inju-
rious. He not only disapproved. of !tie practice
of proceeding from a greater' to a lesser vote, but
be thought'it imprudent to givie remuneration un-
der 'circumstances similar to those attending the
case of General lop. If the Court would
grant 'remuneration in such a case, why would
they not do .so iii that of Lieut.-Colonel/Marriott,
who was wounded, and detained a prisoner fol•
three months in the isle of
,France ;, and why not
in many other cases where. there, were as strong
grOtinds for remuneration as that immediately be-
fore- them.' Fhe funds of the Company were by
no means adequate to recompence general appli-
cations of. this description, and it would therefore
lie a direct attack upon' the principles of the esta-
blishment, if the present case met with their
ali-
pi•obation.
Mr. liumE conceived the Resolution to be a
violation of the bye laws of 'the Court, it being
necessary that a distinct notice should precede any
money grant.
The CHAIR nAN said, the opinion of their Coun-
sel was, that having voted a larger sum to any
peron,, and afterwards having reduced the vote,
sulaller would not be a violation of the standing
law.

Mr. LOWNDES, in a speech of some length, ob-
jected to, the vote of 3,390/. He, could not help
thinking that the business was smuggled through
the \Court, for there were'but four-Directors pre-
sent Mien it received the approbation of the
Court—the rest he supposed were lost in the fag.
He could not conceive how the human mind could
be reduced to such an extreme as to-be capable of
toting a reward to one mau fot services which
• were as well performed by another without any
reward. 11e did not understand the principle up-
on-which perk could give remuneration under ca-
sualties at sea. It was possible for the person
who complained of lgsses to ;have, protected him-
self in some meastrre against them, and if they
did not take the precaution it was their own fault,
lad not that of the Company.
The CHAIRMAN put the question to the Coun-
sel, as to the propriety of the proceeding lie pro-
-posed, of Moving a reduced sum to General His-.
lop, while a resolution for a larger sum was be-
fore the Court ; to which the Counsel gave it as
his opinion, that a distinct notice should precede
- the consideration of a anoney grant. 'lt wasim-
i;ossible for the Directors, consistently with the
a tiles. of the Court, to increase that grant, but
-6,rs- could votg a lesser, as the lesser suns was in-
tluded.in•the greater.
Alderman ATKINS read The stating,
that 14 days notice should be given previonS to,
. the discussion upon a money grant. 11e obserVed,
that betore 3,3001. were granted for the repara-
tion of losses, sufficient documents to prove the
.extent of those losses should be laid before the
Court.. • . .
Mr. Drxmi concurred in these sentiments, and
stated it to be his Opinion, that no individual bac
any right to make a claim for circtinistances aris-
ing from accident,, for he had-the power of insur-
ing before hi 3 departure: •
• Mr. TWI,INp. was of opinion,.that the present
proposition.was not a violation of the bye-law.
Mr. RANfiALLJric'xsoNsaid,-tliat the specific sum
should be mentioned in the notices. For.the pur-
pose of avoiding contusion, he would propose a
situple plan—that of 'withdrawing the former re-
solution, and ntoving the latter. ' He conceived
the plan of acting upOrs the first resointion, by
-proposing t t..s,eccind as depending. upon Ai/a very
-bad-precedent'.-' - • •
Mr. Twiss said, the second
_proposition viipuld
clo-Away the first effectually, and therefore there

*A Aid h übttity rof titratt the
,

Mr. rt ustLwAti, Was ,ftir withditwing the urn

Hon.

After a speech MOM Mr. LOW DER; stbilgers
were ordered to withdraW, and the Court reninined
in deliberation foi7 near in hour before stranger
werr admitted to the, gallery, wittn the. roriner
vote ot 3,300/. Was negatiVec, and the propsit ion
of -1,5001. postponed to a GetieriAl tptirt, to be
asscml►kd for drat purpose.—Adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE..

COURT OF CIJANCERY, JAN; qt, 1814.
L1T1,14.111.17 lIRACY".
WILLAN versus BATpiAN.

This was a mot ititi made by .Mr::BARNALL, for
a special injunction to restrain .the defendant from
further printing., publishing, and sellinr, a certain
Medical Puillication;called-the ,ipi6pgts Cutanetz,
being pivatiically taken in part egpi-essly, and in
part implied by,and substantially from the cele-

. .
brated Treiitises of the late Dr. NVlllan; upon Cu-
taneous and Scrophtilotts DiseaSes as also upon

Vaccine InocuJatio.n.

The Learned young Counsel prefaced his mo-
tion by stating that this case dilfcred from. the or-
dinary ones, where one man's- Work or .copy right
had been , pirated alter publication, into a new
work openly, inasmuch as here/Ivas also a piracy
of .the private property of the -plaititill,-Mrs‘..
Willap) the widow, executrix, and residnary le-
gatee of the PoctOr, her deceased hashmt,,On
whose will she obtained probate in ISI2-=being
,the' on printed mann scriptsi of the deceased, iv Welt
came illegally or framlnlently illto the defendiniri
bands, and appear Printed in Lis new works either
openly and expressly, or by obvious and necessary
notwithstandingthP ingenious mode
of couching the tlibtight tin (Hifi:re:it terms: but
withont A single: wor original idea.

The VICE CHANcr.rLott; with minute attem-
tion, collated the ni:n.ked hass;ities of the original
and pirated wOrks, and d reclett that the-terms of the
injunction should be sotramed as to'restrain the
publication es_pressly;or intendment, or inillli-
' cation of any part of the works of the ,deccused,
which would not prevent the rest of the hook from
being published, but would e‘pa'lly ans-wer:the Ob-
ject of, theplaintiff, in prOteetinibr her property
and copy-riglat. _

In this mo4ified state
this Honour granted the
injunttion.

ISAAC DF,LITALLE, JOHN KING, AND JOSEPH LET-

TICE, V. JACOB DE PONSEED BRANDON.

\% I:£ FIELD moved fm• an: Injunction, to
prevent the Sheriff-from paying- a sum of money
to the 'defendant, under the following circum-
stances plabitiff,.Delvalle, and the defend!
ant, Brandon, were acquainted and -the forwet.
Keing authorised to
_purchase a _quantity of to.:
baceo on commissioo, he agreed with. the latter

for 13 hogsheads; at ls. per pound. They agreed
that there should be two invoices,; one at Is. per
pound, which was to be delivered to Delvalle's
principal ; and another at 11 pence halpenny,
which was to he delivered to the defendant's prin-
cipal. Thus' the two brokers were to defraud
their emploSTers. The tobacco amounted to 744.1.
14s. and they shared 341. Ss'. between them, be-
ing; the difference between a shilling and 11 pence
halfpenny per pound'. The plaintiff Delvaile's
principal became a bankrupt, and the defendant
re-sold the tobacco at a loss of 5001..; lre,bought
his action. against Delvalle ;
,the other plaintiff
becime his bail. An agreement was entered into
by Delvalle and the defendant, that the former
should pay 1501. and the suit to be stopped.
gave- his bills of exchange•for that amount, but
in the face of the agreement he had proceeded
against the Sheriff, wfio had ruled
,the

-His Honour the VICE-CutascELLott gianted
the Injunction, on the condition. that the plain-
tiff should pay the 'money into Court, in a week, ,

POLICE.

POST-HORSE DUTY.

Bow-STREET.-It will he reCollected that George
Lentz, the young man who has been convicted of
stealing a dressing case from a • shop in 1101W-
street, and in payment gave a forged draft, for
which offence he was apprehended at the 'White
Swan Yard, in Knightsbridge, where he hired a
horse. The reports appearing in the'newspapers
With this circumstarkce, and Mr. M‘Dougat, the
keeper of the White Swan Yard, Knightsbridge,
not being licensed to let'post-horses, the fainters
of 'the duty were_ on' the alert, and yesterday
brought forwardu charge against him for letting
horses.

. Mr. Pat)li Johnston; of Paddington, sfateri, that
he called at the White Swan;Yard, Knightsbridge,
with his gig and horse, and stated, that his horse
being knocked• up, wished to I►ire one to Wool-
w:cb, and 'he w.►s acdornmodated With: (Me, for
which he was to pay a guinea, and which he d►d
accordingly. .
_ _

'fhe Ifece:ver7General of the Miry stated, that
.Mr. Al€Dougal was not licenced. He was there-
fore convicted in the mitigated penalty of 3L tuot:
two guineas costs.

Mansfield Evans and John Sadler, the
two men who were in custody at this Office
charged with being two of the gang who attack-
ed Vickery, were .yesterday admitted, to bail for
the a”ault, •

GUILDHALL. -- Yesterday a poor mane was
brought before the SittingAldrinan, on, suspi-
ciOp of, having stolen a basket of coals. The-otr
ficer who took him into custody stated, that he
met the prisoner about 10 o'clock last night with
a basket on his shoulder, and upon inquiry was
told that it cont*ined coals. This was the case;
but the officer fipprelien-ding that they had been
stolen, took him to the Cornpter. The Magis-
trate, (Sir M. Btok.km) said, he was always
ready..to support the officers of the police in the
proper discharge of their duty ; but in the pre-
sent case,, he thought the officer had rather over-
acted his,part. The prisoner had told him truly
what the basket contained,
,the hour was' not
suspicious, and where no antecedent grounds of
suspicion existed, it was certainly hard for an in-
dividual: to ire kept in custody all night, and
brought before a Magiatrate as a delinquent. The
prisoner was discharged, and the constable 84111°-
11134 d to act in future with inore.circumspection.