The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JuLY 31.
The LORD eIIAIiCELLOR. sugg►estetl to Bar the propriety
of postponing for the present all motions of any length, and of
proceeding only with such as respected the payment of money
out of Court. It was his intention, he said, tom on the lunatic
and bankrupt petitions on. Saturday,. and to go on with them
without interruption until they were disposed of, whatever
other motions might intervene. As soon as he should have got
through the petition paper, however, he would hear any appli.
cation, provided it was brought forward previous to the 16th of
August, but after that day he would not sit to please any man.
He had not the slightest doubt but that there were Gentlemen
now employing themselves elsewhere, and on other business, in-
stead of attending this Court,. and that when the sittings were
nearly at a close they would pour in their motions altoeether.
This, however, he begged to say lie could not allow. His last
observation was not made in reference to the Gentlemen at the
bar ; for whom, during a long judicial life, he had received
every attention and assistance. _
According to this intimation mere moriermotions were the
order of the day.

_

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JLTLY 31.
REV. STANLEY V. SOTYTHERN.
Mr. PATIKE n. this morning stated that he had affidavits, from
which it appeared that notice of this motion had not been regu,
lardy served on the defendant.
'The VICE-CHANCELLOR read the affidavits, and did not
think they could support an objection to the service of the notice
of motion. • .

Mr. PAILKEIt then produced affidavits which denied that the
defendant had used the expressions imputed to him, but ad-
mitted that the defendant had disobeyed the injunction. The
affidavits went on to state circumstances which •
The VrcE-CitaNcEz.t.ou said it had nothing to do with the
case. The defendant had been guilty of gross disobedience to
the injunction, and the order for an attachment must be made
absolute.

VESEY V. SWEET AND ANOTHER.
In this case an injunction was moved for to restrain defend.
ant froth publishing a pirated edition of the law reports of the
plaintiff, Mr. Vesey.
Mr. IVETHERELL, for the defendant, contended, that this
was a mere abridgement, and cited the case of Hell and Halms,
among others, to prove that a properly executed abridgment
WWI in Ilia a new work. Allowing that it were not an abridg-
ment, it was possible that it might co dyfer from the original
work, in matter, size, and price, as to be any thing rather than
a piracy.
Mr. Ha Astro, for the plaintiff; referred particularly to p.age
208 of the work published by the defendant, and said that his
client, 31r. Vow)+, complained particularly of this passage as
being in every respect the counterpart of a passagein his own
work. To this fact .I.lr. Vesey had sworn.
The Vi ANCELIDH said he had looked at the two pas.
sages and was of opinion that they were exiutly similar. He
couldnot, therefore, look upon this work as an abridgment.
Mr. WETHERELL objected to this passage being looked
upon as a sample of the whole work.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, the proper mode would be
to refer the case to the Master, that he might compare both
works, and make his report upon them.
Mr. H EAMES hoped his Honour would grant the injunction
In the mean time.
The VICE 0111NCELLOR—" Tem the injunction."