The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-13 00:00:00

SWEET V. ARCHBOLD.

Mr. PEPYS and Mr. ROE were counsel for the defen-
dant in support of the present motion, which was that
the injunction which had been granted, restraining the
defendant from publishing a work on the practice of the
Common Pleas until after the trial of an action,
might be dissolved. It will be recollected that the
facts of this case were shortly and simply these—Mr.
Archbold wrote a work on the practice of the Court of
King's Bench, the copyright of which he sold to the plain-
tiff. Hs subsequently wrote a work on the practice of the
Court of Common Pleas, into which he copied certain
portions of the work on the King's 13enc6 practice.
the plaintiff filed his bill, contending that That was a piracy,
and prayed for an injunction. His Honour, the Vice-
Chancellor, granted the injunction, except as to the first
five pages of the last work. The case was brought
by appeal before Lord Lyndhurst in 1829, and
his Lordship continued the injunction, but ordered
the plaintiff to bring an action in the Court of
Common Pleas against the defendant, the defendant
admitting that he had sold the copyright of the first work
to the plaintiff. Upon the trial of the action the
Learned Judge directed a case to be made for the
opinion of the Court; the case was argued, and the
full Court of the Common Pleas came to the unanimous
opinion that there was no piracy. The result, therefore,
was in favour of the defendant. He had been kept from
selling his book from 1829 until the present time, and the
Learned Counsel considered it to be a matter of course
that the injunction should now be dissolved.
Sir E. SucnErt, Mr. Sergeant MEREWETHER, and
Mr. WRIGHT, were for the plaintiff. They contended
there had been a miscarriage in the judgment of the Learned
Judges below, and the question of piracy or no piracy bad
not been tried at all, and that there ought now to be
another case directed for the opinion of the Court of
King's Bench. Mr. Archbold had sold the King's Bench
Practice to Mr. Sweet, and before their client could get
his second edition out, the defendant had published his
Common Pleas Practice, in which he had inserted no
less than 500 pages out of the 600 which constituted the
work on the practice of the Court of King's Bench.
The arguments were proceeding when we left.

SIR EDWARD SUODEN'S CHANCERY PRACTICE.-Sir
Edward Sugden, after this week, will leave the Laid
Chancellor's bar, and confine himself to p aetising before
his Honour, the Vice Chancellor. The learned gentle-
man means also to withdraw from the House of Lords'
practice. He will only go out of the Vice-Chancellor's
Court on special briefs. It is however erroneous to
believe, as has been reported, that this change is occa-
sioned in consequence of any misunderstanding be-
tween the Lord Chuncellor and Sir Edward. The
fact is, it has long been in contemplation by Sir
Edward. It has been with him purely a question of
pounds, shillings, and pence. It has had nothing to do
with political feelings. He has not been sufficiently
employed by having confined himself, as he has done, to
practising in the Lord Chancellor's Court, although he
has appeared as Counsel in almost every case. He
considers that much more business is got through in his
Honour's Court, and that there he will have more scope,
and be more usefully and effectually occupied. All know
full well, that in whatever Court be does appear, his
extraordinary knowledge and unlimited acquirements
must secure him full practice.

VICE-CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

IN RE WILSON'S CHARITY.

This case came before the Court upon the petition of
two freemen of the city of London, named Smith and
Edwards, praying for a reference to the Master for the
future management of the Charity. By the statements
in the petition, it appeared that in the year 1766 a gen-
tleman of the name of Wilson, by his will gave 20,0001.
to the Lord Mayor, the two senior Aldermen, the Recor-
der, and Chamberlain of the city of London, whom he
constituted trustees, for the purpose of lending it out in
BUM of not less than 1001., or more than 300/., to young
men who had set up in trade, one year or not
more than two, either in the city of London, or
within three miles of it, upon their giving satisfac-
tory security. The money was not to be lent for a
longer term than five years, one per cent. being paid as
interest for the first, and two per cent. for each year after-
wards, and the interest to be paid regularly every half
year to the Chamberlain of London. The testator also
directed that the unemployed capital should be placed out
by the Lord Mayor and the other trustees in Government
Securities, but in such a manner as not to impede his
primary intention. The interest arising from the money
lent, together with that laid out in Government Securities
was to be employed, in the first instance, to the payment
of 401. to a clerk in the Chamberlain's office to keep the
accounts, and the residue was to be added to the principal,
to wake up any loss that might take place, or towards
increasing the capital. No money was to he lent
except under the order and direction of the Lord
Mayor and the other trustees, who were to hold certain
periodical meetings, to effectuate the trust for doing
which the testator requested each trustee present to ac-
cept half a guinea. No person, on applying for the ass,st-
ance pointed out by the testator's will, was to be refused
on account of his religious persuasion, provided he was a
Protestant, and did not keep an ale-house or gin-shop.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who, with Mr. ANDER-
now, appeared for the petitioners, stated that, great losses
having been occasioned in respect of the loans made in
pursuance of the trust, it was some time ago resolved, by
the then Lord Mayor, and the other trustees, that ,the
loans should be limited to 100/, and that four securities
should be bad. That course, the Learned Counsel pub -
mitted, was not in accordance with the will of the testa-
tor, and ought not to be adopted. The meetings of
the trustees had been merely formal, though they had
taken care to have the half guinea. The accounts of the
Charity, notwithstanding 401. had been paid yearly to a
clerk in the Chamberlain's office, had not been properly
kept and audited, and added to all this, there were large
balances both in the hands of the Chamberlain and the
trustees. The Learned Counsel did not for a moment at-
tempt to impute corrupt motives to the Lord Mayor and
the other trustees, but the only object of the petitioners
was to lay the history of the Charity and its management
before the Court, in order to have its opinion whether the
Charity ought in future to be carried on as it had been
for some time past, which, to say the least, was directly
contrary to the intentions of the testator.
Mr. ANDERDON followed on the same side, and de-
signated the course pursued by the trustees as a gross
breach of trust towards a most important, meritorious, and
valuable charity.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR could not agree with the
Learned Counsel that charities of the description now in
question were so valuable or important as he believed them
to be. For himself, he could say that he was once a
trustee for such a charity, and it never flourished but whe❑
it was not used.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the Court would
admit there were some good traits about the charity, for
instance, it did not extend to the setting up of ale houses
or gi❑ shops.
Sir EDWARD SUODEN, who, together with Mr. RAN-
DALL, appeared for the Lord Mayor and the other
trustees, begged to express the thanks of his client
to Messrs. Harvey and Yates for bringing them
before the Court. As to who the two petitioners were
they were left in the dark, all that was known
of them being that they were freemen of the
City, one residing at Blackheath, and the other in Salis-
bury-square. He would frankly admit that in some cases,
occurring now and then, petitions like the present would
do some good ; but in a case like the one now before his
Honour, such a petition deserved the reprobation of every
Court into which it was introduced, the object of it being
plainly costs, and those alone. Never was there a case
in which there existed slighter foundation for the interpo-
sition of the Court. The petitioners had only acted upon
information and belief, and in almost every allegation had
come to a conclusion which could be rebutted by the

of
Friend,elklr. Anderdon, had complained of the meeting
trustees upon affidavit. It was a in stake to 'teiol
that the trustees had refu,ed to lend larger sot/. of
1001. They had been in the habit of lending 21""toti
3001. continually, and the trusts of the teltir-el
will had been regularly carried into effect. Hi'Lletaibef
the trustees, to whose shame it was to be stated, t'a.
had received their halkuineas.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL—They wear I,fir g-‘•°
and cannot take a motion, of course.—(Lauetter./ err.
Sir E. SUGDEN—No, they wear serge, and ire, loge
fore entitled to take motions, of course. As t°
balances in their hands, be thought the Court w°°'-:Ctbe
with him in thinking it necessary. There wereci-if,Bl
present moment no less than twelve applicants ; 8, to 1)4
every time money was required, stock was obligeumior,
sold out, gre it loss would be incurred. In agic•foito
the Learned Counsel trusted that the Court would di
the petition with costs. t whe°
Mr. RANDALL was about to address the Curt'
ffid °it
His HONOUR intimated a wish to have such sis IP
as had been adverted to by Sir Edward Sugden ft° 11tt14.
trustees, and ordered the matter to stand over Ibr
for that purpose.

to -uFP"'
"7101' "
ing tor'o
he telt°
Hi,
Br°
ei
e
that I

silk Of')6
item)
• der,.
Are ke
Owl°
•,gro
woo' .t ;be
were
I ; Bpd, w.
blige" orf
conciiiio
oUld disf9

rt►whe°l
r)u_ taxdo
II :no di°
.
letor s wee,