The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-02 00:00:00

TESL SUN, LONDON, WIN DAY JULY 2, 1838

evidence whereof this iexiiarkable And valuablle riaiiort is
composed.—me}.

It will be seen from what appears in our columns this day,
that the celebration of her Majesty's coronation was gene-
rally and enthusiasticall) observed throughout the country.
Arguing from the accounts already received, it would seem
almost ridiculous to doubt that when sufficient time shall
have elapsed to bring us the intelligence, we shall find the
remotest parts of the kingdom, and even of its dependencies,
to have participated in the same demonstrations of loyalty to
the youthful wearer of the British Crown. Though the
august ceremonial itself was necessarily confined to this me-
tropolis, the spirit which even here constituted its highest
glory—the spirit of a free and generous people, attached to
their institutions and to their Queen, circulating through the
veins of the empire, has shed its influence, its lustre, and its
warmth on the most distant extremities. Even Canada, the
scene of recent strife, can scarcely be supposed to form an ex-
ception. The friends of British connection who have proved
themselves the most powerful will had the public recognition
of the compact with their Sovereign as an auspicious event,
while the deluded part of the population,who have already ex-
perienced the mercy of the crown, will do credit to themselves
by a fitting expression of acknowledgment. It is gratifying to
think well of human nature, and we believe that it is grati-
fying because it is right. The speculator, who takes a fa-
vourable rather than a gloomy and ungracious view of it,
is therefore the more likely to be correct. But there is no
speculation in the facts which have already transpired, and
which are sufficient to show that no Sovereign, male or fe-
male (not even excepting George the Third) ever ascended
the Throne, or went through the ceremony of accepting
the Crown of these realms with more cordial expressions of
devotion, affection, and respect, than her present most
gracious Majesty. It must be a source of unmingled satis-
faction to the Queen herself, and to another illustrious per-
sona A-e united to the Queen by tics of parental love, as well
as to every one connected with them, either by relationship
or acquaintance, to witness from day to `day the testimo-
nies pouring in from all quarters, and proving, not by cold
official forms—not even by solemn and sacred adjurations,
but by a simultaneous burst of joy—that th 9 allegiance of
this country to its Sovereign is an allegiance of the heart.
—O/or/ling herald.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JUNE 30.
JENNEN V. BRYANT AND OTHERS.
This was a motion to discharge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor appointing a manager of the Clarendon hotel at
Leamington, and restraining the defendants from interfering
with the management. The plaintiff had carried on the busi-
ness of the hotel for some years, but, having secome em.
barrassed he assigned over all his property to the defendants,
by deed of trust, for the benefit of his creditors, he himself
continuing to carry on the business under their superin-
tendence. Differences having arisen between the parties the
plaintiff paid his bill and obtained from the Vice-Chancellor
the order as above-mentioned.—Judgment postponed.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, *hum 30.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. SALMON.
111 r. JACOB moved noon answer to dis3olve an injunction re-
straining the defendant from buildirtg a wall so as to inter-
cept the light from a indow in St. Edward's Church, Cam-
bridge. The injunction was obtained upon an information
filed at the relation of the churchwardens. The parsonage of
the church was in Trinity Hall, and Corpus College pos-
sessed some property adjacent to the church ; but neither of
these bodies complained of the defendant's intended erection.
The injunction was dissolved with costs.

ROLL'S COURT, JuNE 30.
INJUNCTION—HODGSON AND GRAVES V. SAUNDERS.
Mr. RICHARDS moved for a Special injunction on the part
of Messrs. Hodgson and Graves, the well-known publishers of
Pall-man, to restrain John Saunders, the younger, of Pater-
noster-row, from violating their copyright, in publishing a
fec simile of a portrait of the Queen published by them.
Messrs. Hodgson and- Graves purchased, at a great cost, the
portrait of the Queen, painted by Mr. E. Parris, from which
the beautiful print engraved by Wagstaff was executed. The
expenses of bringing out this work were very great, and the
plaintiffs had already sold 2.500 copies. On Wednesday last
the defendant pubiished a life of the Queen, to which he ap-
pended as a frontispiece the plaintiffs' portrait of her Majesty.
This engraving was a complete copy of the original, but,
being engraved from the print, the impressions were reversed,
and the ribbon of the Order of the Garter was consequently
placed over the right shoulder, instead of the left, and the pat-
tern of the earrings was slightly altered. Mr. Graves made
an affidavit that he and his partner had purchased a painting,
and had the engraving made from it at their own expense, and
that they alone had the copyright of the work. Mr. Wag_
staff, the engraver, in his affidavit, stated that the print pub-
lished by the defendant was a pirated copy of the engraving
executed by him; and Mr. Parris, portrait painter in ordinary
to her Majesty, swore that the print was made from the en-
graving executed by Mr. Wagstaff from his own painting, and
that the alterations were only attempts at evasion.
Lord LANGDALE examined the portrait and the pirated
copy, and gave it as his opinion that it was taken from the
original; he, therefore, granted the injunction.