The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-29 00:00:00

OTHERS.

Mr. Titian had yesterday obtained an injunction to restrain
the defendants from selling by auction the goods of the
bankrupts.
Mr. HORNS implied this day t 8 have the injunction discharg-
ed.—There had been two commissions—the first on the 25th
of October; the second, after a third partner had been disco-
vered, on the 7th of November. It was resolved to dispose of
fancy articles in the silk trade as soon as possible by auction.—
Liberty of view was given to persons who might be supposed
desirous of purchasing. But a petition had been filed for an
injunction to prevent the sale, on the ground that• a fourth part-
ner had been discovered.

The Lonn CHANCELLOR.—I asked how long before the
party who applied for the injunction had heard of the sale, and
why they had not given notice ? Mr. Bligh, in answer, aid
that they had heard only the day before that the advertise-
ments were but two days old.
Mr. BLicH.(having just come into Court) said he was sur-
prised by an affidaVit having been filed to discharge the injunc-
tion, as he had received no notice.
HortNE said a notice had been given. His Learned
Friend probably meant brief.
Mr. BLIGii hoped his Lordship would not allow the sale to
go on.
Mr. HORNE read the affidavit on which he moved. The
sale had been industriously made known. Every arrangement
had been made for the sale, and he hoped his Lordship would
not prevent it.
Mr. BLIGH begged to refer to the facts of the case. The
assignees had only been chosen on Saturday last, and that very
day they had determined on the sale for Wednesday at one
o'clock. The goods were to be seen only by ticket. Was that
like a fair public auction ? They were advertised to be sold at
prime cost. Braganza shawls, stuffs, &c., were all advertised
to be sold at prime coast. ow could they know that they
were to be sold at prime cost? Yet this was the way in which
5,0001. worth of goods was to be disposed of. He had to state,
too, that the goods had been removed, in collusion, to a con-
siderable amount. There were, too, four partners now dis-
covered. The usual mode in such a case was to supersede the
commission against three, and to issue a new commission.
Mr. HORNE was very glad that his Learned Friend had now
got his brief. But his Lordship would see that the petition was
here against the three Russels, not against Todd. As to the
ticket, did his Learned Friend contend that all the rabble of
London were to be admitted to see the Braganza shawls ?
Under the former commission, it had been thought that the
mode now proposed was the most beneficial mode of sale. The
sale was made well known ; and though the advertisements
had not been long published, there had been bills in the win-
dows long before.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I cannot—it would be rash in
me to direct how the sale should be made; therefore, the as-
signees will sell as they think proper, at Their own peril. If it
be the property of four, and not of three, notice can easily be
given.
Mr. HonNE.—Your Lordship will allow, costs in this case.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—I believe I must. If it be the
property of four, you can (to Mr. Bligh) want no assistance

Mr. STUART, when he proceeded, said, that in the affidavits
of the plaintiff and the author, which had been handed up to
his Honour, it was stated that permission had been given to
Mr. Elliston to print the work for the theatre, but that the per-
mission had been given to no one else, and that the persons
'mentioned by the defendant as having printed the work besides
himself were merely the printers for the theatre. The Learned
.Counsel proceeded, for the purpose of commenting upon it, to
read the affidavit of Mr. Elliston, which asserted that he was
solely entitled to the-copyright of the songs and chorusses in
dispute, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had
any right to publish them.—The deponent said that he had
been possessed of the copyright of Don Giovanni since 1817,
and that he had never disposed of it to any one. The author,
he stated, was at that time in his employ to write dramatic
pieces, and to do " other jobs" about the theatre. The de-
ponent further stated, that whilst the author was so in his em-
ploy, he had the full use of his talents to write dramatic pieces,
and do " other jobs," as aforesaid, and gave him, besides his
regular salary, divers sums ofmoney over and above by way of
bonus, as a reward when the pieces were successful, and that it
was whilst the author was so employed by the deponent that
he wrote Don Giovanni, Monsieur Tonson, and several other
pieces, which had been highly successful. The Learned Coun-
sel continued, that the author swore that he only gave Mr.
Elliston the right of printing for the use of the theatre.
The Vic E-CitANCE t,s,oit asked whether it was for the use
of the performers in the theatre ?
Mr. STUART said the piece was printed by Mr. Elliston for
sale in the theatre, to assist the audience.
The VICE-CRANCELLOP..—You do not, I suppose, claim
the songs, which I perceive are old songs ?
Mr. STUART said it was merely the words of the song which
they claimed.
The VICE-Cira.s:cEt.Lon.—Then 11Ir. Elliston swears, that
it is he 4vho has the title to the copyright. You say that he has
only a qualified right to print ?
Mr.STUART.—It is very like a qualified right, your Honour.
The VicE.CitaxoELLott said it was a qualified right. The
parties must settle the right to the property between them, by
an action in a Court of Law, before he could interfere in this
very serious question.
Mr. SPENCE rose to request that his client should be allowed
the costs ; when
The VICE-CITANCELLOR asked what had been done in that
case which the Lord Chancellor directed to be taken into a
Court of Law to try the right of a person to take notes at a pub-
lic performance, and afterwards to publish them ?
Mr. SPENCE said he really did not know what had become
of that case, but certainly no decision had yet been made upon
the question. The Lord Chancellor had recently decided in -a
case similar to the present, that where permission was given
by the owner of a copy-right to a second person to publish it,
and a third copied it, he would not grant the owner an injunction
to restrain the person copying. As the plaintiff had come into
Court with this injunction, the Learned Counsel submitted,
that upon the injunction being dismissed, the defendant ought
certainly to have the costs.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he would reserve the consi-
deration of the costs until it was decided in a Court of Law to
whom the copyright belonged.
Mr. SPENCE said his client was so very poor, that if he were
allowed the profits of the publication for three years, it would
not pay him the costs he had already incurred.
The VICE-CitaxcELLon.—l am afraid if I were to read
these songs through I should not be inclined to give the plaintiff
any assistance, for from what I see of the character of them,' I
do not think that they are such as are calculated to advance the
morals of the country.
Mr. STrAnT.—Your Honour, they have been licensed by
the Lord Chamberlain.—[The latter observation of the Learn-
ed Counsel excited the risibility of the auditory.l
The injunction was dismissed; each party paying their own
costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28.
GARD V. rORREST.

The defendant in this case, a yeoman of the King's Body
Guard, was arrested in the Palace Court. He applied to the
Judge of that Court for his discharge, on the ground that the
Court had no power to hold him to bail ; but his application
did not succeed. He then put in bail, and removed the case
into the Court of King's Bench, and was obliged, in order to
bring the case before the Court, to put in and perfect bail. In
the mean time a writ of inquiry was executed in the cause,
and the damages estimated at 40/. On a fanner day Mr.
Marryat obtained a rule to sheer cause why an exoneratur
should not be entered on the bail-piece, on the ground that the
defendant was privileged from arrest.

Mr. EARLE now shewed cause against the rule on three
grounds :—First, that the defendant being at large on bail was
able to perform all his duties, and, consequently, there was no
ground of inconvenience to the Crown or the public, on
which alone the Court would interfere ; secondly, that as the
defendant had voluntarily put in bail for,the purpose of bring-
ing the case before a higher tribunal, he could not now be per-
mitted to treat the proceedings as invalid; and, lastly, that
having unnecessarily delayed the plaintiff' by removing the
cause, he presented himself to the Court under circum-
stances which would induce them to refuse him summary relief
on motion, and leave him to his writ of privilege.
Mr. 'MArtitvaT, in support of the rule, urged that though
the defendant was now at large, his bail might at any time ren-
der him, and thus prevent him from discharging his duties :
and wherever a party on surrender would be entitled to his im-
mediate discharge, the Court would not compel him to render
for the mere purpose of discharge. The defendant was com-
pelled to put in bail, in order to bring his case before the Cotta;
and therefore he ought not to be concluded.
The COURT said that their opinion was formed on the pecu-
liar circumstances of the case. They must presume that the
Judge of the Palace Court had decided according to law, and
therefore there was no sufficient reason for the removal of the
cause. The putting in bail was therefore the voluntary act of
the defendant, and the Court would not discharge them. They
might ask the consent of the Chamberlain to render him, and
if the consent was granted, the render would be
discharged with costs.

THE RING v. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVER-

SITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. Sor.rclToß-GENERAL. produced the affidavit of Mr.
Jephson, stating, thathe was a candidate for the office of Pro-
fessor of Mineralogy, and' that he now was desirous of being
admitted to the office, and of performing its duties.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that the affidavit did
not state that Mr. Jephson had always been desirous of eNecut-

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that it would be a
great deal to contend that because it was thought convenient at
one period to appoint a professor for the cultivation of a parti-
culaf science, the University must always continue the professor
whether convenient or not. Suppose it should be found, that
the study of mineralogy was so attractive as to engross too
much of the time and attention of the students, might not the
University discontinue the professorship?
Mr. Justice BAY ; and the same argument seems
to prove that th 6 appointment of an individual cannot properly
be for life?

The Judges consulted for a few minutes, after which
The LORD CIIIEF JusTicE said, it will be impossible for
us to devote more time to-day to this case ; therefore let the nile
be enlarged till the next term. In the meantime, we will con-
sider of the preliminary objections, and if we think that they do
not preclude us from proceeding, we will hear further argu-
ment on the mode of election.

THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF ELLWALD,

V. O'BRIEIi.

Mr. CHITTY begged leave to mention this case, in which
the defendant had been found guilty on a criminal informa-
tion for sending a challenge to the prosecutor, Mr. Ell-
wald, and posting him at the Royal Exchange. The prose-
cutor had intended to bring him up for judgment; but he
bad made an apology so ample, that, with the sanction of
their Lordships, he would proceed no further. Mr. O'Brien
had sent a letter to Mr. Ellwald, acknowledging that he
had acted under the influence of irritated feelings—that he had
since discovered that his irritation was entirely groundless—
that be begged to make as ample an apology as one gentleman
could make to another—and that he was willing to pay all costs
of the prosecution, which Mr. Ellwald had kindly consented to
withdraw. Under these circumstances, he (31r. Chitty would
move that the defendant might_ be permitted, to go bre the
Master, who would tax the costs, instead of coming up for judg-
.
ment.

The CoustT sig,nifietl their acquiescence in this course of
~proc-
eeding.
MR. HENRY HUNT.

As the Judges were rising to quit the Court, at a quarter past
7 o'clock, Mr. Henry Hunt rose on the floor, and began to ad-
dress them.

Mr. Justice BATLEY.—What is it you move, Mr. Hunt ?
Mr. Hunt.—l wish to move against one of the officers—no,
not one of the officers, but a gentleman of your Lordship's
Court, Mr. Charles:Frederick Williams.- I wish to ask your
Lordships that he may be criminally prosecuted for insulting
me, and trying to provoke meto fight a duel, which would have
forfeited my recognizances for good behaviour.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—That is a motion for a cri-
minal information, and must be made by Counsel.
Mr. Hunt.—l hope your Lordship will not drive me to
Counsel in this case. I have heard of " set a thief to catch a
thief ;" but I am afraid it will not do to set a barrister to catch
a barrister. • _ _

Mr. Justice BAYLEY.—The same attempt has been for-
merly made, and the Court decided against it. The distinction
is this—every man has a right to be heart' in his own cause;

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 28.
( Sittings in Banco.)
•
POST HORSE DUTY.
DOWSE V. GARETT.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, the
farmer of the post horse duties for the County of 'Warwick,
against the defendant, ftr! innkeeper at Kington, under the
following circumstances :-._The defendant • had entered into a
contract with the person named NiThyatt, to furnish him with two
additional horses to assist in drawing a stage coach up Edgehill,
on the road from Kington to Banbury, for which he Was to
the a sum of one guinea per week, and not to be paid speci-
fically for the distance on which the horses were employed. The
horses furnished were sometimes those used by the defendant
as post horses, and sometimes his cart horses, according as it
suited his convenience. The coach was a public stage coach,
drawn by four horses and carried the mail. Without the as-
sistance of these additional horses the coach could not have
reached its destination in the time limited by the proprietors.
The question for the Court was, whether, under these circum-
stances. the horses could be considered post horses, so as to
render the defendant liable to a duty on them, under the provi-
sions of the different post horse duty Acts ? This question arose
on a case reserved at the trial, which took place at the Assizes
for Warwickshire, when the plaintiff had a verdict by consent.
Mr. Serjeant LENS, for the plaintiff, insisted that this was a
letting to hire for travelling, within the words of the 57th G.
111. c. 59, s. Di, and that the horses must be considered as the
objects of the post horse duty, which attached on such a hiring.
Mr. Serjeant LAWES contended, that the horses were not let
to hire for travelling within the meaning of the different acts,
inasmuch as they only assisted the other horses for a very short
distance, on account of the steepness of the hill over which the
carriage was to be drawn. The coach was already liable to a
particular duty applicable to that mode of travelling, and no
other duty could be fairly superadded to it. The horses were
not hired to go a mile or other specific distance, and the defend-
ant was not paid for their service as for the service of post-
horses, at a certain rate for a certain distance, but received a
stipulated sum per week.
Mr. Justice PARK on this day delivered the judgment of-the
the trial, he
aotr tsaid,hoteh ewdrelifeoennf
dt
the
ni
est
pcwaoassset
ilaaoibrr isleee b(ticonfot
ypr
acts,eayt
Court. After stating the circumstances of the case, reserved at
ti
eCo orduubr t ty;
ti
under
need-4ae
Ts;
saorgumeedOnthe
George 111, which rendered horses let to hire for travelling
without saying " Post," liable to duty. We do not found our,
judgment upon those chums, which have been mentioned, as we
think they do not apply to the present case, post-travelling being
generally understood to be travelling by
,an individual in a
coach or chaise with post horses. By the 44th Geo. 111, the
distinction is taken as to stage coaches, which are rated accord-
ing to the number of the pageengers they carry. By the pre-
sent argument it is contended, that though the coach might be
drawn by six, eight, or ten horses, without any additional
charge, if they went the whole journey, or if they belonged to
the proprietor of the coach, yet, that as they are let to hire by a
person who has no interest in the coach, he must pay the duty.
But this is arguing in a circle, for if the owner of these ho: ses
is to pay a duty in respect of their hiring, he cannot let them on
the same terms to the coach proprietor, who will therefore. be
obliged to make a greater demand on his passengers, and thus
the charge will ultimately fall on the public. We are unani-
mously of opinion, that the horses used in this case have not
been used as post horses, nor do they come within the descrip-
tion in any of the Statutes, which render horses so let to hire
liable to the duty as post-horses. 'We therefore think the de-
fendant is not liable to the present demand, and a nonsuit must
consequently be entered.

Drt. JAMES CAssELs.—ln our Monday's pub-
lication, We announced the decease of Dr. James Cassels, phy-
sician at Lancaster. Dr. Cassels, was a n dive of Leith. In
early life he settled at Lancaster, where his abilities, jolt ed to
his urbanity of manners, soon introduced him to extensive
practice, and to the friendship and intimacy of the principal
inhabitants. He was author of many fugitive pieces (chiefly of
a sober cast), which are to be found among the fleeting publi-
cations of the day; his principal work, and one of very exten-
sive circulation, is a popular treatise on the " Diseases Of See -
men." This highly important subject, which has been somewhat
overlooked by great medical authorities, is treated by Dr, Cassels
in a plain and distinct manner; the style is nervous and pointed,
and the treatise, besides much highly useful medical ink .
mation, contains many excellent exhortations and observations
on the moral conduct of seamen, a like honourable to the au-
thor's heart and head. He lived respected and died lamented
by the rich and by the poor.—( Edinburgh Courant, Nov. 25.)

ORTHOGRAPIIY.—There appears on the front
of a potatoe-warehouse, in one of the principal streets of South.
Shields, a large sign-board, on which is the following inscrip-
tion:—" HILLS TEATT WARE-HOUSE." •