The Sun.
London, England, 1826-07-27 00:00:00

September, 1825, when they entered into a second agreement,
whereby Mr. Robertson was to receive the sum of 750/.
a year for three years in lieu of his share of the profits,
some time after he applied for 250/., which, together with 600/.
which he had previously received, made 850/. ; to guarantee
which sum he mortgaged his share of the Magazine. Matters
went on very well until June last, when Robertson sent the ma-
nuscript of No. 146, by his friend, to the plaintiffs, and de-
manded of them 25/., to whiCh he said he considered himself
entitled on the first of last month, according to the original agree-
ment.

The plaintiffs replied, that they had no funds out of which
.to
pay him, and even if they had, they would not feel justified in
paying him, as he had been 'already indebted in several hundreds
to the house—whereupon begot Clarke snd Runt to publish the
Magazine.
Mr. HIIALD contended, under all these circumstances, his
clients were entitled to an injunction ; for after Robertson had
agreed to accept 7501. a•year, in lieu of his share of the profits, be
was not entitled to receive 251. a month as by the original agree-
ment.

Mr. 131ce1<asTrrit, for the defendants, contended that the
last agreement did not supersede the former, whereby Robertson
was to receive 251. a month—that though he had mortgaged his
share for 850/., yet the principal was not to be paid until the 18th
of October next, at which time his client might redeem his share;
that it was for the benefit of both parties that the publishers had
been changed, as the publication in question had been neglected
since the bankruptcy
of Mesars. Knight and Lacey, as was evident
from the falling off in the circulation ; for, before that time, 8000
copies used to be sold, but since, the circulation had fallen to half
that number. His client, be said, had directed Hunt and Claike
to keep a separate account of the profits, in order that the plain-
tiffs might receive whatever should come to their share; his ob-
ject was to make the most of the work, and rescue it from the
folic* state to which it had been redueid,
through the inattention
of the plaintiffs.
The N'ICE-CHANCILLOR said, though the parties had agreed,
among themselves that neither of them should part with his share
without the consent of the other, yet the assignees could take the
benefit of the agreement, and dispose of that which the bankrupt
himself could not transfer; the only doubt was, whether they
were entitled to the injunction they sought for. It was clear
that Robertson was influenced by honest motives, and that be had
no other object than to give the assignees their.due. The fact of
his employing other publishers was not an evasion, but was ren-
dered necessary in consequence of the work being neglected through
the negligence of the assignees, arising from their embarrassment.
The present application came with a bad grace from the assignees,
who had taken the law into their own hands, by publishing a
second number of the same work. On viewing all the circum-
stances connected with the conduct of the parties—he could not
grant the application.
The Injunction was accordingly refused. •