The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-16 00:00:00

the affidavit of Miss Landon and of Mr. James, to the
same effect.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that such general
statements-on either side did not bear upon the case.
Mr. KINDERSLEY submitted that, supposing the writ-
ten agreement was dubious upon the subject of copy-
right, the universal practice of the trade was of great
weight.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment, and entertained
a doubt as to the matter of fact of there having been
any such verbal agreement as had been represented. He
hoped Mrs. Norton would not consider he was pressing
the case very harshly against her; but it seemed to him
extremely probable that a Lady continually indulging her-
self in the exercise of the imagination might not have ac-
quired a habit of strictly attending to the dry facts of a
case as they really happened. He could easily conceive
that she had had allowed the obtrusive faculty of her
fancy to interfere. He said so, because there appeared to
him to be a very essential variation between the language
she had used, and what stated by Mr. Bull. He could
not but think when she stated with respect to the
two latter written agreements that it was " expressly
stipulated," and Mr. Bull that it was " tacitly un-
uerstood," that the latter did mean to offer a direct
contradiction to her statement, because in one pa-
ragraph of his affidavit he stated that at the time
of entering into the agreement of June, 1832, Mrs. Nor-
ton expressly stated she should reserve herself the sole
and exclusive right of collecting her articles, &c., in the
same manner as Mrs. Hemans had done ; so that when he
meant to confirm her he said " expressly stated ;" but
when be meant to offer a variance, at the least, from the
statement she had made he used the expression " tacitly
understood," by which his Honour thought he meant to
contradict her. With respect to the first agreement it
was necessary to look at the manner it was treated by Mr.
Bull. It was under that agreement the production " Kate
Bouverie" was published ; and when The Thief stole part
of it Mr. Bull made an affidavit, in which he swore that
he was sole and entire owner of the Court Magazine and
La Belle Assenzblee, and that the copyright was vested in
him. That was made in August, 1832, when the matter
was fresh in his recollection, and with that matter
fresh in his recollection, he came forward with an un-
qualified statement that the whole copyright was ffi him-
self. Now, when the Court heard the same gentleman
say, in 1835, there was an agreement between him and the
lady to the contrary, his Honour confessed he was a little
disposed not to put implicit confidence in what he stated.
He was inclined to think all the parties had relied more on
their imagination than the strict exercise of their memory.
The Court had now their written memoranda before it,
upon which it was called to impose a construction, and in
his Honour's opinion the prima facie interpretation to be
put on them was that which was thought proper to be put
by Mr. Bull in August, 1832, when the transaction was
fresh in his memory. The agreement said he was to have
the "use and advantages" of the articles to be supplied by
Mrs. Norton, and Mr. Bull's construction upon that in
1832 was, that he was to use them in the manner he had
done, or any other, and this construction gave the de-
fendant Churton a right to use them in the manner he had.
It was a material thing that the Court should have had
its attention called to the fact when the injunction was
granted that there was no verbal agreement made,
which comprehended all the terms, and that afterwards a
written agreement was detected, to which the verbal terms
were added. Had the same course been pursued from the..
beginning it might have been understood in a different way.
It was the duty of the lady to have stated correctly all the
facts on an exparte application for an injunction, and lie
could not but think when he saw the two last agreements
were signed by her that the first was also signed by her.
He was far from attributing to her any desire to deceive
the Court, but he repeated that he believed it arose from
her having given too free a reign to her imagination. The
only thing the Court could do was to dissolve the injunc-
tion with costs. His opinion would not prejudice her, be-
cause if the construction he put upon the memorandum
was incorrect, or if she was capable of proving a verbal
agreement, she was at liberty to resort to a court of law.

TORY MEETING COMPLETELY

DEFEATED AT NORWICH.

On Tuesday last, St. Andrew's Hall, in this city, became
a scene of riot and confusion, which beggars description. The
Tories, anxious to cling to the last to customs which have for
so long been the source of their power, lately got up a re-
quisition to the Mayor (William Moore, Esq.), requesting
him to call a meeting of the freemen only, for the purpose of
taking into consideration the Municipal Reform Bill, com-
plaining of its being a violation of their rights, and of the
rights of their children, and with a view to get up a petition
in opposition to it. The requisition was signed by about 300
freemen, and the Mayor immediately acceded to the wishes of
the requisitionists, and called a Common Hall for Tuesday.
The MAYOR was voted to the Chair by Mr. BIGNOLD, se-
conded by Mr. RUST.
Mr. BIGNOLD moved a Resolution, the purport of
which was, that taking away the suffrages of the freemen was
a violation of their-rights, and a most unjust act on the part of
the Legislature. Mr. Bignold was very brief in his obser-
vations. Much, he said, had been talked of about bribery and
corruption amongst the freemen ; for his own part, he thought
when an Alderman was to be elected, as it was usually made
a holiday, there was no objection to giving the men a pot or
two of beer to enjoy themselves.
ALLEN BROWNE, Esq., a Barrister, followed Mr. Bignold.
Ha characterized the Bill as being unjust, unwise, oppressive,
aol more pernicious than any of the measures introduced by
the Whig Ministry, who were the preachers of sedition while
out of office, and the perpetrators of tyranny while in. He
spo%e of the writings of those who argued for the neces-
sity of removing the franchise of the freemen of towns
and cities, on account of their venality and corruption,
as bring brutal nonsense, babbled by the supporters of
the Bill which was an act of spoliation under the pretext
of punishing venality, though the real object was to crush the
power of the Conservatives. The Town Councils, he said,
would be nothing less than political clubs, composed of the
most violent partizans, whose object would be to excite sedi-
tion, and promulgate their favorite doctrine of liberty and
equality.
Mr. BROWNE and Mr. BIGNOLD were both heard without
any interruption.
Mr. THOMAS RUST, a freeman, who has always distinguished
himself as a most unflinching opposer of every species of cor-
ruption, next presented himself to the meeting for the purpose
of moving an amendment not to disfranchise the poor free-
men, but to propose household suffrage and vote by ballot.
Immediately on coming forward Mr. Rust was assailed with
the most violent vociferation's by a party who were determined
not to hear him. He Was at the same time loudly cheered by
a great number of the freemen present. From this time it
was impossible to hear a word. The Mayor and ieveral
other gentlemen endeavoured to obtain a hearing for
him, but to no purpose. Mr. Rust stood his ground
nobly. The Mayor, amidst tremendou: confusion, endeavoured
to put the resolution, without the amendment, and some few
hands were held up. A Freeman named Burrowes spoke, but
nothing would be heard ; he then exhibited a placard, with
the words " Household Suffrage" upon it, and loud cheers
followed.

At length Mr. WINTER, the Speaker of the Common
Council, moved a petition, but from the noise he was quite
inaudible.

Mr. BECKWITH, the Town Clerk, seconded the petition, and
while he was speaking some one attempted to snatch the
placard from the hands of Burrowes, who immediately dealt
him a blow on the head, and then the meeting became regu-
larly uprorious—fights in different parts of the hall—a fight
on the hustings, and the mirth and fun grew fast and furious.
In the midst of this row the Mayor attempted to put the peti-
tion, and some of those immediately round the Mayor held
up their hands; but the Mayor finding it impossible to pro-
ceed, took his chain off, put it in his pocket, and walked out
of the hall, and thus ended one of the most noisy and
violent meetings at which we ever remember to have been
present._ _

The Tory party has this morning put out copies of the pe-
tition, which they say was agreed to.
From the time that Mr. Rust attempted to speak, to the
time the Mayor left the hall, not a word was heard. The re-
solutions, or petition, were never put, except to those imme-
diately near the Mayor, nor was there one-twentieth part of
the hands of those present held up in favour of them.
Mr. Rust's amendment was never put at all. From the
feeling which was apparent in the Hall, there is no doubt the
amendment, if put, would have been carried.
The requisition was signed by upwards of 300 freemen,
twenty of whom never refused payment for voting at any of
our elections ; and it can be proved by unquestionable
authority, that upwards of one hundred of the requisitionists
have bartered and sold their votes for payments in money.