The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-20 00:00:00

[PROCEEDINGS. OF SATURDAY.]

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. , 18.
ABERNETHY I. KNIGHT AND LACEY.
The Sovicrroa-GENr.RAT. having prepared his motion for
an injunction against the publication of Mr. Abernethy's Lec-
tures in this work, by a few observations on the nature of the
case, proceeded to read extracts from the affidavits, as explana-
tory of the facts. Mr. Abernethy's affidavit was most perfect.
Nothing cntild be added to his denial of having given permis-
sion to publish.
Mr. Roar. followed on the same side. Every man possessed
a property in his own language and ideas, when he could prove
certain indlcea to fix their identity. This was the doctrine laid
down in the case of Taylor and Miller, by Mr. Justice Yates.
The very advertisement of the Lancet would prove that th^
published matter wa.4 the property of Mr. Abernethy. In the
ease of Macklin's farce of Love the,proprictors of a
Magazine sent persons to the theatre to take it'down as spoken
by the actors, and subsequently published it in the magazine ;
an injunction was applied for against the publication, and was
granted.
31r. HouwE and Mr. SHADIVET.L replied: There was not
a particle of evidence to show, that this' eminent Lecturer had
even apart of his lecture in existence upon paper ; and there-
fore he had no right to call Upon the interference of a Court
of Equity. Nothing was done by the publication of the Lancet
to decrease the finne;of Mr. Abernethy ; but many useful pur-
poses might be accomplished by the minute manner in which it
bud hitherto been published. No case could be cited to show
that an orally delivered lecture could not be published by any
person, therefore. they could see no ground upon which lus
Lordship ought to interfere.
His Lotinsitte said the law with respect to letters was
clear. The person writing a letter, retained a property in it,
and the receiver could not publish it unless with the permis-
sion of the writer, but he wished to know how the defendants
were-said to haVe poisessed the copy before publication, and
What the bill was.
Mr. SoLiCITOR-GENERAL-said the bill was not clear upon
that charge; and the prayer was for an account and an in-
junction.
Mr. Ilonwri observed, it was sworn that on several nights
they had extinguished the lights for the purpose of preventing
persons taking notes.
His Lo omit e gave Mr. Abernethy till Monday to produce
the paper front which he lectured, and to the Editor of the
Lanael to say, if he pleased, how he procured the reports of
the Lectures.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEc. 10.
SHERMAN V. ELSTON.

This was an action of ,trespass 6; disturbing the Oaintiff's
possession of some property, situated between the Old Bailey-
and Warwick-lane. Part of the evidence Of the plaintiff's
possession was, that fie had sown seeds upon the property in
tittestion. Ono of the witnesses for the defence was called to
prove, that the plaintiff had refused to pay tithes for this pro-
perty, alleging, that it was useless to him.
The Cum J tITICE-Oh, I suppose the tithes of these
seeds !.
Mr. Sergeant TAnDv—No, my Lord ; there are better tithes
in London than tithes of seeds.

.... • -
A Juryman—l.:wish we had no tithes at all.
The Jury ultimately gave a verdict for the plaintiff with
nominal damages; the defendant undertaking to restore the
premises to their former condition.