The Sun.
London, England, 1817-07-18 00:00:00

NAWNI.IN AND OTHERS V. GRACIE.

This was an n'pplication, made by Sir A. PIG..
Gorr, on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Gracie,
praying his Lordship to dissolve an injunction,
which had been obtained by Mr. Mawman, and
forty-4/0 other Booksellers, restraining him from
publishing a work, intii Cruden's Concord-
ance." In .the'year 1810, the plaintiffs had pub-
liShed an edition (the Cth) of the above work,
and, in 1815, the defendant also published an
edition of the Aarne, which the plaintiffs alleged he
had pirated froin the one published by them.—
The work in questiom was originally c(lnnittled by
its venerable author in 1737, and in 1784 he divd.
.T.n 181.0, a Mr. Bye, having made certain 'altera-
tions, additions, and corteetions, and also some
oinissioes, sold the work to 'Alr..Mawman for the
slim of 1351. ss. Among the corrections made by
Mr. 'Bye, were no less a number than 300 in the
'punctuation, leaving out colons and semicolons.

.CI4ANCIULOII.--7" Ler" me ssAy,. Sir
Artaoir, C;at, !IA I been employed on such a
work is the. present, I should very soon have come'
to a fun .top."

.SitARTUUR PIGGOTT COlltintviL—Ttre 'reason.
for the pltio'ilV-havilk-applied'fOr in itknet
to stay the .iklendant publish? g -his work
was, that he sold it at one hail tie p'rice'of the one
ptiblfsited by them. 1t was t oliim; Sir Arthur, a
strange anomaly; bow any:person could claith tbe
copytigla of a work by •a mere correction of the
puncfnafirm, -and a few ; if that were
to be. allowed, it would he impoSsible to say what
works tvciiultf not be laid to piracy. Mr.
Gracie, by hii 'affidavit, denied the allegation,
that Mr. liye-had made any additions to. the on-:
ginal .Mr. G., had ccimpiled his work
from the Edinburgh edition of 1804. and. the
Livvrpool—edition of -1814, 15, 1-6, .which was
:published in numbers. The corrections alleged
to have-ban-made by the plaintiff, appeared in the
Edinburgh .edition of .1:814. ',Messrs. J. and
Wilson, two of the :plaiutiff,s, had-bought 500 _
copies•of the defendant's work, and another, a

Baynes, had :purchased,3,oo.. The obtaining
the•injunction .was-of -very -serions.consequeuce to
the delendant,tas there were.2oool. in promissory
notes, which he could not.teceive, And also, 2500
copies-which he.could,noubspose of. 'Phr ,Lcarned
:Counsel quoted the case of-Power ,v.. Walker, in
-which:Lord .Ellenbcrough held, ,that .to vest an
interest,-every ,assignmentofa copyright. must be
made in writing, as-applicabk to the,present ease.
The .work in question was not entered at Station-
cr's•fiall, nor did the plaintiff's insist on their
right cO,the-work till latelY; .tae must therefore
contend, that •there;was no -ground for continuing
the injunction.

1147TRESLOVE followed on the'same side.
Sir SAMIJELROMILLY for the •plaintiffs, •con-
'tended, that from the eampilationmf the wprk,'it
was.clear that the defendant had pirated it:from
that of tbe•plaintiff : in foci, he, the defendant,
'admitted -.that he .bad copied, it froth the'Rdin-
burgh and:Liverpool'Editions, whieb,was a piracy
frim'the-plaintiff's work. From 'the many correc-
lions'thativadbeen-Made, the plainfiff.badlaken
as mifeli'pains. as the' original compiler. After
quoting a -great .many. of the,.corrections, the
Learned Gentleman -concluded by hoping that
that Lord Chancellor would -nOt dissolve the
injnnetion.
-I'iIr..SLIALEWELL 'followed.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the pre_
sent injunction.liabeen.obtaincti on an ex parte
heating of the case,, before the Vice Chancellor,

It appeared to' his. Lordihip very strange; that'
fory.iiine booksellers should not have•been.aWate7
of the .existence of the work in piestion, and-have"
stopped it if they had the right. After taking a'
clear and able vieW of the case, his. Lordship de-
cided, that the fact as to whether the plaintifkhad,
or had not the copyright, .was a question to. be
decided by a Court olLaw, and dissolved the in-
junction accordingly:

COURT. OF KING'S • BENCH, JULY 17.
Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord ELLENBOROUQH.

CRINI. CON.

8. ITALFORT), E. V. SIR' TI4O.IIVAS STAINES.
This was an action in which the plaintiff,
Banker at Canterbury, sought .to'recover a com-
pensation in damages against the defendant, for

having sedarad and carried on an adulterous inter-
course wit:kirk' wife. It appeared that the parties
were nearly related to each other, that they had
been brought up together at the same school,
and that the closest intimacy and friendship had
sahrristed between them on all occasions; When-
ever the defendant was 'absent from England, he
being a Captain in his Majesty's Navy, Mr. Hal-
ford had ate manaaernent of his private affairs, and
when the cessation of the war made it no longer
necessary for the defendant to be employed in the
service of iris country, he took up his residence at
Dandelion, near Margate, where he had a house
and a.farin; and_ where he was frequently visited
by Mr. and Mrs.: Halibut. Indeed their' inter-
course was. so constant, that Sir ThoMaS generally
passed his time at iris friend's house at Canterbury,
when he and iris wife were riot visitiut. him. it
appeared by the evidence, that Mr. Hallotd Was
married to his-Lady in the year 1805, and several'
witnesses proved that they had a amnia! affection
for each other, and lived together in a state'ofam-
interrupted happiness. The principal witness to
prove that the adultery had been committed was,
Mrs. Stuart; - she said slie was sister to Sir
Thomas Staines; 'that she was a widow, amd lived
in his [rouse, as a companion and. housekeeper.
Mr. and •Mrs. Halforrl were,in the constant habit
of visiting at her brother's house, at Dandelion ;
and on theie oecasionS Me. H. would go to Can-
terbury. for a night or two, and return again to
Dandelion, where his wile remained behind him.
'Up to tire month of April; 1.816, the witness had
never seen any tiring improp,sl in the conduct of
'Mrs. Haltord. One night, • during that month,
while Mr. Hallord was at Canterbury, the witness
happened to sit up an. hour latter than usual; a
little before rine in the morning ; she :was
in her bed-room, she heard,some person open a
door at the bottom of the stairs, which led tai Mrs.
Fialtord's rotOm,.and which had been previously
bolted. .She waited some time to hear:if there evas
any further noise ; nobody returned ; and she '
fearing that thieves had been in the house, went 1
and called Mary Rolfe, the servant. They went
down together, and found all the doors fastened,
so that it Was impossible that any person could
have broken into the house. She retained with an
intention of intorming her brother of the noise she
had heard ;.'when' she went to his bed room the door
was open, he was not in the room, but tire clothes
which he usually wore, with the exceptiOn of.his
night gOwn and slippers,werc lying on Orel:loot...rite
witness could not go to sleep; andat r hemorn-
ing, sire hiard a person return and go into her
brother's bed-room. ' The next day 'Mr. Raiford
returned from •Canterbuyy, to which 'place he pro-
ceeded again very soon aftet in the month of May.
On the night of his ahsenee the witness hear tlihe
same noise•of a person going down and unbolting
the door ; • she welt into the bed-room of Mary
boat, the servant, whom she had previously call-
ed u;,on to accompany her. This room was eon.:
tignoas to that in which Mrs. Halford slept; there
was a communication hit ween the. two rooms by
means of a 'doable dour, one of which the servant
had purposely left open that day, in order to be bet-
ter able to- hear what passed in Mrs. Halford's room
acuigiit.-. The witness and tire girl, while stand-
ing anirriAleiing at rhis-cloOr, heard the nose
a-person getting into Mrs'. Halfard's bed; witness
also heard whispering, and other noises which
Cominced her that her suspicions were well-
founded. Immediately after, sire went to her bro-
ther's-room, found the door open, the Led empty,
and his- clothes in the same state as on the former
tdaht. These things were repeated every night
during that month, and the month of June; when

Alr: Elaiford happened to go-to Canterbury.

The

witness entertained no dOtibt of a criminal inter-
course having taken place. About •a fortnight
atter the first discovery, tbe-witness.mentioned the
business to an acquaintance of her's, of the name
-of Crump, who advised her to mention it to her
brother,- and who, onlher expressing a reluctance
to do o, said she would !herself- communicate it
to'him ; but the witness intreated of her not to do
so, orraecount of his violeut temper. She parti-
culaily noticed the conduct of her -brother and
'Mrs, nalfdrd, after sire had reason to suspect
their criminal intercourse ;.and-slre-saw her on one
occasion sittingon his knee, and observedtheur kiss-
ing each other. Mrs. Raiford in the mean tune re-
turned to Canterbury, and some time after the-wit-
ness went Co London , in order to' be present at her
daughter's lying-in. While she was in London,--dttr-.
ing—the course of the winter, she communicated
to Miss Raiford, the aunt of the plaintiff, all the
circumstances that 'had come to her knowledge ;
then the affair was made known to 'Mr. Raiford ;
a family meeting was held ; all the circumstances
were communicated to. Sir 'Thomas Staines ; and
the result was, a separation between Mr. and Mrs.
Raiford. .Mrs. Stuart,' in: her re-examination,

acknowledged that previously to her mentioning
the business to Miss Halford, she had, while in
London, received alerter from her brother, telling
her that 'in consequence .their tempers not'
agreeing, lie did not wish that she.should live with

him July longer..
Mary Itolle corroborated the'testiniony of the
last witness, .so far as related to the second night
of the discovery. She examined

bed next morning, and it seemed to ,Iteras it tw•o

._ .
persons'had lain in it.
-Mr. Crttnip-proved that Mrs. Stewart made the
discovery to•liim early. in May,. 1816, and asked
his advice what to do.- •He advised h•er to,make

communication. to no person bnt iziir Thomas. 'She
Said she was Afraid of his violent temper. • Wit-
'nessliffered, to make the,conimunicationl to him of
Month', but Mrs. Stewart dissuaded him, telling

hiru S Tivomns would knock' him ,down He un-

derstood Nlitry Rolfe was to ,tqati:e_ the communi-

cation while Mrs. Stewart was ttivay,: but.he did
not know:bow.it was iriade.:-He.w s .pre4ent at
the examination before the family at -Canterbury.
This was the substante.of the, case-on theliart
of toe plaintiff.
7Mr."Sedeant BEST, for the defendant,. addressed
the Jury in an able and ingenionsispecch, icr-which
heendeavoured to prove that no Adulterous: inter-

course 'whatever had ta-lccn place. The,circnin-
-stance on which he chiefly dwelt ,leas, that of the
witness -Airs. Stuart 'never having made the
affair public until her brother had; discarded her
from his -house—%Vhen, in 'a -fit of anger .and

malice, that wicked mornan _tru,mped the .story
which she related that day in Court ; and told

it after a lapSe of. nine months, for the purpose
of ruining her brother and an innocent woman,
whose honour and character she bad determined
to ruin. Here the Learned Serjeant commented
on all the parts.of Mrs. Stuart's evidence, in order
to spew that it was defective as well as incon-
sistent. Not a single fact had been stated in any
of the evidence which •was not perfeetlyrecon-
cileable with the. -innocence of ;be parties. Hu-
der all the circumstances he entreated the Jury
to weigh the probabilities of the case, and he
hoped iley would, in the presence-instance,- give
a gallant officer-that. defence, which he on many
occasions gave to his country, when he was braVe-
ly fighting her battles. • If they gave a ire Hitt
.with- heavy 'damages, it would be his ruin. .He
was only a half pay Captain inhis Majesty's Navy,
and had very little property. Surely, they would
not, by their verdict, immerse this brave officer
within the to of a prison, where he migbt-be
prevented from ever again serving his country:
Lord,ELLENßoaopott summed up the evidence
with suitable observations—and the -Jury, after a
short deliberation, returned a verdict.fur the plain,
t i if—Datnages, _One Thousand:Pounds. .
The Court was uncommonly crowded during
the whole trial, which lasted several hours.

TH.E D,C7KE op NonTHISEIII.AfirD'S COFFIN.--•
The inside coffin' is lined with rich white satin;
and dress of . the same, trimmed with fine point
lace, &c. °lnside case made of English oak,.
covered with rich crimson Genoa velvet, and
finished in the handsomest manlier, with stars of
the Order of the Garter, coronets, and every ap-
propriate decoration. On the plate are the arm 4
and supporters, with the following inscription
engraved :
The Most Rig)] Pt;issant and,Most Noble.
PRINCE lITGH PERCY.
Duke and Earl of 'Northumbei land, Earl am Baron Percy.,
Baron Luey.?oyning, Fitzpavne, Bryan, Latimer, and
Warimoritt, and Liaronet, Lord Lieofenant'and Cnstos Ito-
talon= of the .County of Noriltumberiand, and town of
NeWeistle-upon-Time, Vice-Adriiiral of the same and the
Maritime parts afiereof,
_and IS,night of the Most Nohltn
Order of the Garter.

. Died on thelOtli day of ..Tuty,, 11307.
.111 the 75th year of his age.
The cavalcade will Inure from Northumberland
louse to-morrow at•t welve o'clock.

iNDEsTatmsztsx.-,-.Stevens rested at nine o'clock
on Wedne§day.evening, having gone 29 miles and
a half that day. .11e'started 20 minutes past ;four
yesterday morning, and ley five iu the a(tecuontx
he had accomplished 21 wiles.

•CRARGE: OF MUTIDRIL—OIarySiMpSM7- was veg..
terday, charged, at Union Hall, wait the wilful
murder of her tlatighterra y'oung woman about 23
years of age. From the statement of a man named
Omen, who lives in the same house with the pri.-
soner at-Lambeth, it appeared that,,in consequence
of hearing a noise in the prisoner's apartment oo
Friday evening, he was induced to look i at the
Wipdow,when beam the prisoner strike her danigh-
,ter a violent blow on the head, which knocked her
down ; she assisted her to rise again,-placed her in a
chair, and then struck her another violent bloW over
the eye. The young woman was afterwards taken to
Lamheth -woyk house,where she died on Wednesday.
it farther appeared, from the statement of one of
the nurses bylonginkito•O:c
the deceased Was brought into' th? house her eye
.was.very black, as if froin.a violesitz_biow. She was
.extremely weak, and appeared to, be in a de-
cline. She spoke most affectionately of her mo-
ther, who, She said, had been very kind to her,
maintained her two years, dulin.g. !'me she
path been it!. Qn Friday her .mother came home
in a ,State of intoxicptrp, when she imprudently
called her a dronkun bunter, Which most likely
provoked her tb-•strike her. The prisonec :was
committed till the result of the Coroner's ittqueo
be knowd.

Szraous AcetpeNT,.-7-Yesterday John Cox,
a fine boy, ten years of age, the son of Mr, Cox,.
of Lewishani-street; Westminster, playing with
sointi of his selloo'Nfellows in some alit- ruins near
father's house, they agreed to tnake,what they
termed a bonfire,. ,and
,purchased some crackers
and.gimpowder. 'Young Cox made a" .wildfire.,"
and was in the act of. setting fire to it, When,- fa
consequence. of the powder being very dry, it
blew tip at once in his face, which not only
burned his face in a dreadful manner, but his
eyes were so badly scorched, that the surgeons
who attended him give no hopes of his ever re-
covering his sight.

MELANCHOLY EVENT.—Three One yon men,'
sons of Mr. TAsKEit, were all drowned a few .
days ago, when bathing in the River•Cuper,
(county of. Angus, N. B.)---One of thep, who
could not swim, went beyond his depth, end the
other two, good swimmers, in the vain attempt to
save him,-perished with him.