The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-04 00:00:00

8R00K26 V. COCK.

Air. PLATT stated that this was an action for an in-
fringement of property under the Bth of Geo. 11., c. 13,
sec. 1, by which it was enacted that " every person who
shall invent and design any historical or other print or
prints shall have the sole right and liberty of printing and
reprinting the same for the term of fourteen years, to com-
mence from the day of the first publishing thereof, which
shall be duly engraved in the name of the proprietor_ on
each plate, and printed on every such print or prints." The
print which the plaintiff had published represented what
was called one of a series of " Popular Sketches," and this
print had been pirated by the defendant. The plaintiff's
publication contained the name of the proprietor, but omit-
ted to state the date of publication. On this omission the
defence was founded ; and the question was, whether the
omission of the date would prevent the plaintiff from re-
covering in the present action ?
Judgment for the defendant.
THE KING V. JOHN lILLIOT CAIRNS.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared on behalf of Mr.
Alderman Copeland, an Alderman of London, and the re-
presentative of the borough of Coleraine, to move for a rule
to show cause why a criminal information should not issue
against Lieutenant-Colonel Cairns for sending a letter to
Mr. Alderman Copeland, with a view to make him fight a
duel. The affair grew out of the election for Coleraine in
January last.—Rule granted.

THE KING V. GEORGE LESLIE PHILLIPS, COOMB, AND WOOD

WOOD.

Mr. Serjeant GOULBURN applied for a rule for a criminal
information against these defendants, for publishing a libel
upon a Mr. Badger, a magistrate of the counties of W or-
cester and Stafford. The defendant Phillips was a book-
seller at Birmingham, and the others were tradesmen at
Dudley. Phillips had avowed himself the author of the
publication in question.
The Court granted the rule.
DANCE V. BADGER.

This was an action of assealt and battery, arising out of
the Dudley election, and connected with the motion made
yesterday for a criminal information. The defendant was
a Magistrate of the counties of Stafford and Worcester,
and, having interfered to put down a disturbance that oc-
curred at the Dudley election he was accused of having
violently assaulted the plaintiff, and the present action was
brought against him. The Jury gave a verdict for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Goulburn, on a former day in
the term, moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict
should be set aside, on the ground that it was a verdict
against evidence. The Court had taken time to consider
that application.

Lord Denman this morning said, that the defendan
might take a rule.

BAIL COURT.

THE KING V. THE ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX AND

ANOTHER.

Sir W. FOLLET moved for a rule to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue to the Archdeacon of the Arch-
deaconry of Middlesex, and to Dr. Phillimore, the official
of the Archdeaconry, commanding them to admit Messrs.
Hayward and Taylor to be churchwardens of St. Martins-
in-the-Fields, and Messrs. Staunton, Cobbett, and several
rtliers. to be sidesmen of the same parish. The Learned
Counsel stator;, by a late decision of the King's Bench,
the above-mentioned parish 117.1. !ler‘ri made an open vestry
parish, after its affairs bad been for many y,c.l-1, rlminis-
tered by a select vestry. Pursuant to the right thus esta-
blished, the inhabitants of the parish on the 15th of
April last, held a meeting for the purpose of electing
parish officers, when the persons before mentioned, with
two others, namely, Messrs. Feun and Simpson, were nomi-
nated to fill the respective parish offices. A poll was de-
manded and taken, and it having been first arranged, that,
in consequence of the time that would be required to fix upon
the exact number of votes, to which each voter (voting
according to Sturges Bourne's Act) was intitled, the
names only of the voters on each side should be taken, and
that there should be a subsequent scrutiny as to the num-
ber of votes to which the voters were severally entitled.
On the first day, the Rector being in the chair, the polling
was adjourned ; and on the second day, when the Rector
was unable to attend, and when Mr. Deville was chairman,
the polling terminated. Scrutineers were then appointed,
and a scrutiny accordingly took place, when Messrs. Hay-
ward and Taylor as churchwardens, and the other gentle-
men named as sidesmen, were declared to have a majority
of votes, Messrs. Finn and Simpson being excluded. The
latter gentlemen, however, now objected to the proceed-
ings at the scrutiny, on the ground that the powers of the
scrutineers extended to the numbers of the voters only, and
not to the numbers of the votes.
Rule to show cause granted.