The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-14 00:00:00

VICE-CHANCERY COURT-(THIS DAY

SPECIAL INJUNCTION.—GOUT V. SAMUEL.
Mr. KOE applied to the Court for a special injunction in
this case, to retrain the defendant from sending or permit-
t) go to Constantinople or Smyrna thirty watches. From
the statements of the Learned Counsel it appeared that the
plaintiff, Mr. Gout, carried on the business of a watch-
m tker in Bunhill-row, and had long been in the habit
of manufacturing watches for the Turkish and Smyrna
markets, putting in the usual place in these watches his
name and the word pesedende (which in the Turkish
language meant warranted) in Turkish characters. In
1831 the plaintiff received from Constantinople a
watch marked exactly as his own, with the excep.
tion of the addition of the word Leumas in English
characters. On showing this watch to one of his
workmen for the purpose of asking his opinion as to
the maker, he told him if he would read the word
Leumas backwards, it would be Samuel, who he had
no doubt was the maker of the watch. The plaintiff
in April 1831 applied to Samuel, who is also a watch
maker residing in Great St. Helen's, who admitted that
he was the maker of the watch, and had done so in con-
sequence of the request of persons in Constantinople, and
on being remonstrated with by the plaintiff, he said he
knew he had been acting improperly, and would not re-
peat it again. Notwithstanding this, on the 9th
of the present month the plaintiff received information
from the Custom House that a packet containing thirty
watches, for Constantinople, had been entered in the name
of Samuel, bearing the same Turkish characters and the
word pesedende. The statements of the Bill were veri
fled by the plaintiff and a native of Grand Cairo, who had
been converted to the Christian religion.

His HoNouit granted the irxjunCtion, observing that he
considered it quite a matter of course to do so. It was
true it might be said the injury was done abroad, but it
had equally been done here, inasmuch as the watches had
been pirated in this country.

THE " ATHENJEL;3I" V. " THE ViIEF."

Mr. WRIGHT moved for an injunction on behalf of the
proprietors of the Athengurn to restrain the defendants,
the proprietors of a twopenny publication called the Thief,
from selling No. 13 of that work, published to-day, which
contained piracies of prose and pectry, from the publication
of the plaintiffs.
His HoNon% granted the injunction, observing that Mr.
Wright's client had used great despatch.
Mr. WRIGHT said it was necessary for his client to be
rather sharp when he had a Thief to deal with.

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.

(Continued from The Sun of yesterday,)
MISS BAGSTER'S CASE.

Mr. PoLtocK replied. The question submitted to the
consideration of the Jury was, whether this young lady
was of unsound mind, and incapable to conduct herself
and her affairs; but the practical question was, whether
..he is to be consigned to Mr. Newton, or whether the
Lord Chancellor is to decide into whose care and protec-
tion she is to be placed, where she might best enjoy all the
happiness of which she was capable. He had laid before
the Jury as complete a picture of this young lady as he
could do, with the exception of putting into the box the
young lady's mother, and who, under the circumstances,
could not be a legal witness. He bad called every person

mould examine, and his witnesses amounted to 36 in
ather. What was the answer given ? That Alderman

C. owder always had a bad opinion of Mrs. Bagster, and
tcuold not give her the control of his money. He depre-

ca cd such an attack upon the witnesses, and particularly
%%1 en those attacks were made upon witnesses without

of ler persons being called to contradict tbem. Every one
of the schoolmistresses and governesses had been repre-
s-nted as interested in a conspiracy to forward the base
n I selfish views of Mrs. Bagster. He hoped the Jury
would bear in mind the examination of Miss Clayton, and
he was confident they would come to the conclusion that
here was no person more capable to give instruction. He
hoped her character was safe in the hands of the Jury,
and that they would relieve her from the imputation at-
t,mpted to be cast upon her. Mr. Newton, for what
ison he knew not, bad not laid before the Jury a great
deil of very important testimony, which, under the cir-

cutnstances of the case, it was incumbent fur him to have

done. Not any witnesses had been called to explain the
elopement. He should have thought, that any man of
honourable feelings would have said, " I care nothing for
her money, compared with my penonal conduct, character
and honour, in the transaction." If he (Mr. Pollock)
had bee❑ in Mr. Newton's situation, he should have felt anx-
ious for witnesses to be called, to show his co❑duct through
life, and the history of his family, and to have explained
that he honourably sought, and fairly won the lady's affec-
tions. It was evident that he was connected with a
woman a month before this transaction, and had been so

during the last three years. Miss Newton, who had been
examined that morning, had stated that she had not placed
the linen in the bag, and that her sister knew nothing of
it. Was it not therefore prob Able, that it belonged to the
very woman with whom he had been so long connected,
and did it not behove him to show, that be did not take
fur his intended wife the linen of his -. Above all,

was he not bound to callMr.Wilaon, who had acted such

a part in the transaction? No, he had not done so; he
contented himself with leaving it to the Court to call
him if they chose. When hie Lamed Friend said to the
Jury, " Restore her by your verdict to the arms of her