The Sun.
London, England, 1823-11-22 00:00:00

fcctural Dictionary, . which .I,tat a book of reference and
dpientific authority. The Learned COUnsel relied upon Mr.
Nicholson's affidavit, which stated that many of the plates
and passages complained of in The Practical Builder were
Olken from an old book of his own, published in 1792, called
The Carpenter's Guide. Other plates complained of were
drawn from hits'own imagination; others had been executed by
his son, Mr. Michael Angelo Nicholson ; ,and much of the
letter-press stated to be copied from Th4Architectural Diction-
ary, had been merely cepied into that work from books written
beforehe (the deponent) was born.
Mr. HEALD contended that if The Architectural Dictionary
contained matters copied from The Carpenters' Guide, then,
When Mr. Nicholson sold The' Architectural Dictionary, he
sold The Carpenters' Guide also. As for the plates, it mattered
little whether Mr. Nicholson had drawn them either from The
Architectural Dictionary itself, or from his recollection of what
he had done in that work. The performances of Mr. Michael
Angelo Nicholson were so feW as to make no difference in the
case,
The VicE-CnalqcEi.Lon said (upon an inspection of both
hooks) that the piracy was evident, but that he should proceed
upon a broadeiground.—The words of the covenant evidently
went to restrain Mr. Nicholson from publishing any rival
to The Architectural Dictionary. There could be no doubt
that that contract was broken by the prodUctiOn of The Prac-
tical .Builder ; and the injunction must therefore pass (as
prayed) against the defendants.

COURT OF XING'S BENCH, NOV. 21.
LAING V. DELADIOIIE, GENT.
Mr. ScantariT showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr.
Brougham yesterday for pcptponing the execution of a writ of
inquiry. before the Sheriff in this cause, of which notice had
been given for to-morrow. It was an action by the'captain of
an American vessel, against the defendant, an attorney, for
criminal Conversation with the plaintiffs wife. The defendant
lied suffered judgment by default, and gone to France, leaving
his affitirs tinder the management of his father. This appli-
cation for delay was made on the affidavit of the father,
stating that his son was confined with illness at Paris ; that
having gone, to France to seek him, he crossed him on the
road, and that he had since been unable to obtain an an-
swer to his letter, though he had written to give him notice
of the proceedings. The father also stated, that he believed,
if time were granted, he should be able to adthice evidence
which would materially tend to reduce the damages. The
Learned Counsel contended against the indulgence prayed on
the ground that the judgment was regular ; that an attorney
could not be ignorant of the liabilities he had inclined ; and
that, in fact, the defendant, when the illicit intercourse was
discovered, said " he should be ready to answer, for his conduct
when regularly called on." At this time the defendant was
living in E'rance with the plaintiff's wife, who had eloped with
him, and it was believed that he was drawing. his property
from England in order to deprive, the plaintiff of the fruits of
his judgment when he 611001 obtain it. For these reasons,
the Learned Counsel opposed a delay for which no adequate
cause had been shown—to which the defendant as an attorney
must know that he was not entitled, and which might entirely
deprive the plaintiff of his remedy.
111 r. F. Por.Loox, on the same side, expressed his hope that
the indulgence asked would not be granted without exacting
security for the damages and costs.
Mr. 13notranast urged the hard situation of the defendant

who, by an accidental absence, might be entirely precluded
from availing himself of those grounds of defence which it was
sworn that he possessed. Although he might be liable to an
action, yet every one knew that in cases of this kind it was
often long doubtful whether proceedings would be adopted. So
far from wishing for delay
,merely to postpone execution, he
was willing to give judgment of the present instead of Hilary
Term, in case the judgment which he prayed for should be

granted.
The ConnT granted the defendant six weeks before the
execut ion of the writ of iniluiry on his father's paying the costs
of the delay and of the application, and on condition that judg-
ment would be given of the present term.

THE KING. V.
Mr. ANDREWS moved for a writ of Habeas Caipus to bring
up the body of a person confined in Newgate, on a charge of
horse-stealing, in order to his being admitted to bail. The
defendant was a licensed horse-dealer at Chelmsford, who had
lived many years in repute in that town, and who was now
charged with stealing two horses which he had bought openly
at Cheltiisford fair of two persons whom he could call as wit-
nesses on his trial.
The Collive inquired whether these persons had made affi-
davits ; and receiving an answer in the negative, ordered the
case to stand over till such affidavits should be before them.
THE KING V. .TON't%, XSQ.
Mr. Coorta moved for a mandriMilt addressed to the Mar-
shal of the King's Bench Prison, requiring him to hear the
complaint of a prisoner in, his custody, named Forrester, against
another prisoner named Bridgman. Mr. Forrester had been a
prisoner some years, and in April 1921, had occasion to employ
an Attorney. Mr. Bridgman was then introduced to him as a
Solicitor and partner of Mr. Gellibrand, of Austinfriars, who
anti known to be an Attorney of the Court. Under this cha-
racter he obtained from Mr. muster a lOL country bank-note,
for which he was to obtain changel return part to his client, and
employ part in carrying on the suit. Having obtained the note,
he set off and was neverheard of by Mr. Forrester till he was
himieif brought to the same prison for debt, and was recognized
by his dupe, and discovered to be no Attorney. Mr. Forrester
now applied to the Marshal to hear his complaint, but be re-
fused to pay attention to his ,story.
The Coula asked what character the Learned Counsel sup-
posed the offence to hear ? •
Mr. COOPER replied, ho thought it amounted to felony;
and considered it within the principle of the well-known case
of Major Semple.
Mr. Justice BEST observed, that it wits nO felony, because
Mr. Forrester, when he parted with his note, did not expect to
receive it again in that form.
Mr. COOPER submitted that it was at all events a misde-
rneatiour, as Bridgman obtained the note under the false pre-
tence that he was an attorney, and able to render Mr. Forres-
ter professional assistance.
' The COURT at first thought that the transaction took place
before the passing of the act by which obtaining notes and se-
curities by false pretences is placed on the same footing with
obtaining money; but, finding on inquiry that it occurred
af-
ter the passing of the statute, they granted a rule to show cause
why the mandamus should not issue.

THE RING v. WATERS.
Mr. STE inrEN moved for a writ of Habeas Corpus to bring
up the body a Wm. Waters, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, iu
order that he might be discharged. The party was convicted
under the statute called " The Hovering Act," which subject.
the navigator of any vessel hovering about the coast with
brandy, not being for the use of. the seamen, to a penalty of
100/. In this case the information charged that the defendant
had brandy on board his vessel, but did not go on to state that
the brandy was not for the use of the seamen, which the
Learned Counsel submitted was a fatal objection to the pro-
ceedings.
• '['he COURT granted the writ, and a certiorari to remove the
proceedings.
The Loan CitiEr JUSTICX left the Court at 12 o'clock,
to attend the Council oh the Recorder's Report.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0v.21.
Mr. Justice PARK sat at Nisi Prius to dispose of untiefini

e(1 causes, and the list having been gone th;otigh, the Court
then sat in banco ; but in. consequence of the continued Omelet
of the LORD
,Cuirr JUSTICE, through indimioisition, 'United
its proceedings to the hearing of common motions, and rose at
eleven o'clock.

CONSISTORY COURT, NOV. 21.
MANVILLE V. MANVILLE.
Dr. LUSIIINGTON said this was an action of divorce brought
by the wife against the husband, by reason of cruelty and adul-
tery. The husband bud not appeared in the regular manner,
but had suffered the case to lie, over from time to time, but the
libel wati now brought in, and hs prayed it might be adriiitted.
The libel stated, that in March April, and May, 1821, the
wife was grossly ill-treated by her husband ; they then lived it
the Constttutiou Publie.house, Great lames-street, Lissom-
grove, her husband being the landlord; butihrough in-treatinent
she left the honie. Soon after the marriage he used to beat her,
and use very disgusting language tel./suds her. When she left
the house she went to her brother's, but at the solicitation of ha
husband she returned home again, on hiS promise of amendment,
but. his former violent disposition was soon renewed, and on one
occasion he threatened to stab her with a knife, but his intention
Was prevented by persons coming to her assistance. He after-
wards knocked her doWn in the bar, and on another occasion
dragged her into the kitchen, and struck her so violently as to
break several of her ribs, and she bud not since been restored
to health., The adultery consisted in his connections with se-
veral fccailes, by' which he hall contracted a loathsome diseitSe ;
she, ht consequence, prayed for the divorce., on the charges of
cruelty and 'adultery.
Sir ,Cts Isl. o Rows); sow ordered the libel to be ad-
I mittal.

GREGG t. GlItG6. .
In this.cistise, originally of restitution of conjugal rights pro-
rooted. by the hissband against the wife, and to which the wife
hasiince pleaded the husband's .adiilterY in bar, a long iirp-!
meet was sustained upon an aiiplication made by the ladY's
proctor, that the Court would allow a further delay on decreeing
publication, and assigning it for sentence. The Counsel for