The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

H. Wood and J. Blake, King William-street, Strand—G. Car-
ter and C. Heeley, merchants, St. Paul's-square, Birmingham—
R. Johnson and Co., wine merchants, Gloucester, (so far as re-
gards R. Johnson)--J. Delarnore and Co., ,rrocers, Liverpool
—J. Law and J. Negus, nail manufacturers—T. Hyde and Co.,
machine makers, Leeds—J. Thompson and W. Wh itelaw, tailors,
Piinces-street, Ilanaver-square—.l. _II. Dover and A. Campbell,
agents, Bow-lane, Chcapside—C. Tomkinson and T. R. Thomas,
painters, Liverpool—C. Nuttall and J. Nuttall, fulling millers,
Oakenrod, Lancashire—G. W. Pearce and J. Eynon, carpet
warehousemen, St. Paul's Churchyard—J. _Norris and H. fr.
Price, coal owners, Swansea, Glarnorganshire—ll. Ormerod and
Co., merchants, Liverpool.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

HILLIARD V. NASIL

Mr. KNIGHT, with whom was Mr. BETHEL, applied in this
case for an injunction to restrain the defendant from practising
as a surgeon at or within ten miles of Bushey in Hertfordshire.
The circumstances under which the application was made, are
shortly as follows :—ln the year 1830, the defendant, who was
then practising as a surgeon and apothecary in the town of
Bushy, sold his business to a person of the name of Lancashire,
under a covenant not to practise at Bushy, or within ten miles
of it, under a penalty of NO/. after the completion of
the purchase. The same business was subsequently sold
to a person of the name of Jones, from whom it was
purchased by the present plaintiff for about 3001. In 1834,
notwithstanding the covenant in the original died of
sale, the defendant again opened a shop in Bushy, and com-
menced practising as a surgeon, and the plaintiff now sought,
by the intervention of this Court, to prevent him from conti-
nuing to practise there. The Learned, Counsel contended
that with these facts before it, the Court could not possibly re-
fuse the injunction.
Mr. Noon appeared for the defendant, and contended that
the plaintiff had no right whatever to come into that Court.
The only remedy he was entitled to was to proceed by civil
action to recover the penalty which the defendant had cove-
nanted for. It might be productive of the most serious conse-
quences if the defendant were suddenly restrained in his practice.
At that very moment he might be sent for in a case of midwifery,
or of apoplexy, and the consequence of his inability to attend
might be the death of his patient. At all events, as the plain-
tiff had his remedy at law, he thought that this Court ought
not to interfere.

His HONOUR thought that, whatever objection there might
have been in the case of Bogon v. Farley to decree a specific
performance, in the present case the Court could and ought to
interfere, to prevent a breach of covenant. The defendant
had relinquished practising within the prohibited district from
the 3 car 1830 to 1834, and had in every respect complied with
the terms of the covenant ; and in his opinion the Court ought
to interfere to restrain him (the defendant) from now practis-
ing within this district. Ho saw no substantial difference be-
tween the case of a surgeon and that of a boot and shoe maker.
Mr. Worm—Life and death may,be depending in the one
case.

Mr. KNIGIIT—And soles may be depending on the other.—
A laugh.)—lnjunction granted.)

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

BETTING IN THE COUNTRY.
CHESTER TRADE CUP, P.P.
4 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Abbas Mirza
9 to 2 agst Mr. Mostyn's Birdlime (taken)
9 to 1 agst Sir J. Gerard's Manchester (taken)
9 to 1 agst Sir R. W. Bulkeley's Lambkin
JO to 1 agst Mr. Wheeldon's Giovanni
10 to 1 agst Mr. G. Cook's Red Rover
12 to i egst Mr. Beardsworth's Lucinda
13 to 1 agst Air. Robinson's Solon
20 to 1 agst ilr• R. Turner's Fearnhurst (taken)
The rest as before.
LIVERPOOL JUL, TRADE CUP (ACCEPT OR NOT.)
13 to 1 agst The ChanctLllor
13 to 1 agst Worlaby 8ay1‘.4...k
14 to 1 agst General Chasse
14 to 1 agst Touchstone
15 to 1 agst Louden
15 to 1 agst Jupiter
9 to 1 backed agst the field