The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-07 00:00:00

Saikd out of Table Bay.

August 5, Olive Branch, English Brig, Win. Kind,
Master, bound to London,, cargo wine, &c.
Ditto, 'ditto, William, ditto Brig, R. F. Young, Master,
bound ditto, cargo ditto.
August 9, Government Brig, Locust, Wm. Long, Master,
bound to Port Elizabeth, cargo' flour, &c.
Ditto, ditto, Mary, coastipg brig, Henry Steward, Master,
bound itto, cargo ditto.
Arrivals in Simon's Bay.
August 4, his Majesty's sloop Cygnet, Capt. T. Bennett,
from the Isle of France bib July, bound to this place.
August 12, the ship Sappho, from England left sth May.—
Passt:ngers, Lieut.-Colonel MJlean,Commandant of Cape
Toivn, Rev. Mr. Fell Owes, astronomer, Rev. • Mr. Fearon,
assistant ditto, six officers for the 72d regiment, two ditto for
his Majesty nth regiment. S. Erl:2,land from Bombay, left 2d
June.

Sailed out of Simon's Bay.

August 4, Orient, English ship, P. 7Vi`allace, Master, bound
to Madras and Bengal, cargo sundries.
August 5, Egfrid, English ship, Robt. Brown, Master,
bound to London, cargo, sugar.
The ship Frances Charlotte Massingham, and the Back
S6otia, Agneiv, to sail for Madras and Bengal in a few days
with passengers.

MARRIAGES.

Lieut. Potts, of his Majesty's 54th regiment, to Miss LudolE.
In the Reformed church, on Sunday, the sth August, John
Addey, to• Maria 'Anna Russcuw, separated wife of Daniel
Barend Smit.

Hendrik Johannes Uys, to Constantin Petronella Elizabeth
van Nuldt Onkniydt.
_ _

At Simon's To ;in' on Monday, the 6th August, by the Rev.
George Sturt, L.A. Colonial Chaplain, William Paterson, to
Ann, widow of the late Joseph Smith.

CHRISTENINGS.

On Sunday, the sth ditto, a daughter of Joseph Hall, bap.
tized Caroline Elizabeth.

The same day, in the Lutheran Church, a daughter of Jaco-
bus Laurens baptized Elizabeth Catharina Johanna
Magdalena.

• DEATII S. •
August 6th, a son of Henry Steward, named ILnry Francis
aged about five years.
Ditto, ditto, an infant son of Barer.d rietersa.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY; Nov. 0.
'MURRAY V. RUNDELL.-JUItIGMENT.

Mr. HEALD this day resumed the farther argu-
ments. which had been postponed on Saturday,
and contended that Mrs. Rundell had not dis-
possessed herself of her right to the work (a
cookery book) by any act of her own, and that
by suffering Mr. Murray to publish it for. 14
years, she had done so with the view, that at the
end of that period it would again revert to her,
uor was it to be contended that Mr. Murray's
" cravings of appetite" oughtncit to have been
satisfied in the 14 years, when the very :extensive
sale of the work had fully
,repaid him every ex-
pence he had been at, and given him in addition
very considerable profits. ln fact, the surfvring
hill) to have the uninterrupted possession of tne
won seemed rattler to have increased his appe-
tite than-otherwise.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Then I wish you would hand
them (the receipts) up.to me, Mr. Heald, if they are so savoury,
and have that effect.

Mr. HEALD then noticed the number that had been printed,
and stated that Mrs. Randall having by her a great ;lumber of
very valuable receipts, had determined to give the public the,
benefit of them, and accordingly, in the preface to the book, she
stated that she did so without the expectation of deriving any
benefit or emolument hars,ill from so doing ; but at the same
time, he contended, she did not dispossess herself of the-right
to resume it at the end of 14 years, should she think fit so to
do., No assignment had ever been made to Mr. :Murray,
which the Act of Ann directs should be done to invest an inte-
rest or property in any, but the author, and, ergo, hoW could it
be contended, if even it were to be said to be• a " gift," that
that gave a greater right than an assignmemt for a valuable 'con-
sideration ?

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the injunction granted by
the Vice Chancellor, and which the present motion sought. to
set aside, was for the purpose of restraining the publicaiion of
the work with the embellishments of the other party.
Mr. HORNE—That, my Lord, is precisely the case, and in
fact is the only question before the Court, as we have at this
moment nothing to do with the other suit.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the injunction was certainly
granted against the embellishments only ; and the question was
whether the Court had not a rightto restrain Mr. Murray, but
any body else from publishing the work in question.
Mr. HoitNE said, he was satisfied with the injunction he bad
obtained, and now only sought to dissolve the one Mr. Ileald's
client had obtained.

Mr. IIEALD—The injunction of the Vice-Chancellor re-
strains you from publishing our original receipts, and I con-
tend that even if you had obtained an assignment for a valuable
consideration, still the right would have reverted to us at the
end of the first 14 years, though, it is true, an assignment may
be so worded, I am informed, as to pass property for ever.
Mr. PEPYS contended at some length to the same efllct.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I do not sec how it is possible
for me to interfere if you publish without the embellisnments,
f for the same rule must be ollowe4here as if the work were the
most valuable ever published.
Mr. PEP YS said, it was not even attempted by Mr. Murray
to say that the body of the work had created so great an increase
in the sale. It was to the " title," alone it was attributed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said,- one question to be tried at
law would be, whether, under the circumstances, and taking
into consideration the declarations of Mrs..Rundell she ever
had the copyright ; and again, what was the nature of the ';rift,-
if there was any, to Air. Murray ?"‘ 14, said Iris Loicivl~ip;
(; you can invent a cods head, and a calf's head, different to that
of the other party, and so manage it that it shall not be
taken to be done fbr the; purpose of .injuring the sale of their
work, what right can this Court have to interfere ? . For my
part, I think it may be hard to say, which is the head of the
calf or the cod."

Mr. HORNE said, after what had fallen from his Lordship,
he was not disposed to go. at any great length into the case.._
It was clear that if the words used by Mrs. Rundell in her pre-
face were to be taken for any thing, the whole world might
claim a right to publish the work. Why had not Mrs. Run-
dell, when Mr. Murray, on finding the fireat success of the
Work, sent her one hundred and fiffy-pounds, said she had not
given up her interest in it ? Why had she ,ever suffered the
entry to be made at Stationers' Hall by Mr. Murray ? The
fact was, the question here was between Mr. Murray and Mts.
Minden, and it was evident that the former had been induced
io expend his money, under the idea that the whole interest
had been given to him. The facts, said he, however, it is
material should be, stated to your Lordship. Here are two
suits, but only one is now before the Court. One of these
suits is by Mr. Murray to enjoin the other party from publish-
ing. That injunction had been granted, and no motion had
been made to dissolve it. The other suit is by Mrs. Rundell,
in which she has obtained an injunction to restrain us from
publishing the original work, which it is contended is either
giver. to Mr. Murray or the public generally ; but, my Lord,
I contend this lady gave it up to Mr. Murray, nor do I think
two persons could possibly differ as to the +intention of that
lady when she handed over the receipts. Your Lordship will
also see that the work has been rendered so valuable by the
exertions of Mr. Murray.. It had also been said that her
intention was only to give up the work until Mr. Murray
had been indemnified, but that could not be the fact, as no
Mention, as he had before stated, had been made at tile
time of the transmission of the one hundred and fifty pounds
by Murray. With respect to the clear case, as it was
called, of Mrs. R. at law, why, he would ask, if it were so, did
they not go to law, and try the question, rather than come to a
Court of Equity, where the legal right could not possibly appear
so clear ! But it was impossible, in his opinion, that any Court
would permit any one who had suffered 21 years to pass over
to say, " I do not like to go into a Court of 1.4 w, but will take
the more indefinite mode of applying to a Court of Equity."—
Such a course, to say the least
,of it, was not going to the
most rational forum for relief. Under all toe circum-
stances, the Learned Counsel submitted that the injunction
ought not to have been granted, as. the gift had either been
made to Mr. Murray, or the right and title repudiated by Mrs.
Rundell.

The Lon') CirANcEr.r.ort took a general review of the ch..
eurnstanees of the case, and in conclusion said the Court had no
right to interfere between the parties, the proper tribunal being
a Court of Law. He therefore dissolved Lie injunction, as
prayed for by Mr. Horne.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 4.
His HONOUR heard motions of no public interest, during
the whole day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 6.
HAYWARD V. HORNER.

This was an action up(in the Game Laws, tried before Mr.
Justice Burrough at the last Assizes for the county of Wilts.—
The defendant was charged with keeping and using a setting don.
There was evidence of use at a season prior to that named in
the declaration, but no more ; the proof was reduced, therefore,
to proof of keeping only. Mr. Justice Burrough directed the
jury that an unqualified man was liable for keeping only ' • and
a verdict was accordingly found for the plaintiff, with leave
(from the Learned Judge) to move for a nonsuit.
Mr. Gent rEy now moved that a nonsuit ~Mould be entered.
The Learned Counsel relied upon the case of "Read v. Fez-
rers," (Isth East) in which the mere proof of keeping had been
held insufficient. In that case it was urged that 'keeping was
presumptive proof of keeping for use ; but Lcrd Ellenhorough
negatived that doctrine, and said "according to such an argu-
ment, prOof of keeping not for the purpose of using, would
be proof • of keeping for the purpose of using."—Rule nisi
granted.