The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, MucH 8.
IN RE MAGDALEN COLLEGE.

Mr. LYNCH applied that this cause should be set
down in the appeal paper, the Attorney-General hav-
ing been made a party pursuant to the order of the
Court, which after some conversation between,
Counsel was, granted.

SWAISEY V. liAJOIXI; Avn.orms.
Mr. BORNE was about to open this case, the ob-
ject of which was to obtain a reference to the Mas-
ter, to inquire respecting the rights of •some infants
who are concerned in the cause.

Mr. KNIGHT appeared for some of the defendants,
and was quite willing that the reference to the Master
should be made at once.

Mr. Hon.NE said nothing should induce him to
desist, unless the other side agreed to his terms.
Mr. KNIGHT WaS not induced to mate the offer
from any fear of Mr. Horne's case. He did it to
prevent parties being harassed and dragged through
the mire.

The reference was therefore directed by consent,
and the question of costs reserved.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MARCH
15.
MURRAY V. THE ASSIUNEES 'BEATH, A BANKRUPT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in this case applied to
the Court to give directions for the trial of the right
claimed by the plaintiff to certain impressions from
engravings executed by the defendant.
The plaintiff (Mr. John Murray, the bookseller, of
Albemarle-street) some time in 1826 applied to the
Court to restrain the defendant (Mr. Heath, the
engraver) or his assignees, from selling certain prints
or copies of engravings executed by him for the
plaintiff, from designs drawn by \Vestal!, to illustrate
"'Crabbe's Poems ' and a costly edition of Lord
Byron's works. The application for the injunction
was made upon Mr. Murray's own affidavit, which
declared him sole proprietor •of the drawings• and
plates, for, which he had paid* and that the•engraver
had no right to take a single impression, either to
sell or for his own use, without his (the bookseller's)
permission. Mr.- Heath answered this affidavit by
another, in which he swore that he had always un-
derstood, that by the custom of the' trade, with
which he had invariably complied, the engraver had
a right to take ten or a dozen impressions from his
own engraving, and dispose of them as he thought
proper, without asking any consent from the book-
sellers or publisher. In this instance he had taken
10 sets of impressionsTrom the plates in question. He
also produced the affidavits of nine other eminent en-
gravers, who all swore that it was the recognized
custom of the trade to take a certain number of im-
pressions from their own engravings. They, hew-
ever, differed as to the number which they consi-
dered themselves entitled to take. The highest
stated a dozen to he the established number ; the
lowest, half a dozen. Under these circumstances,
his Honour directed the Master to frame an issue to
try the question ; and counsel attended from both
parties before the Master to settle the terms of this
issue. The Court below were then directed to try
whether it was the practice or usage of the trade of
engravers to take for their own use, without the
consent of the purchaser of the engraving, a certain
number of copies. The case was tried in the Com-
mon Pleas, and the jury found that a custom existed
under which eight was the number of impressions
taken by the engravers without the consent of the
proprietor or publisher. When the case came back
again to this Court, it was discovered that the issue
had omitted the most material question, namely,
whether by the custom of the trade the engraver had
a right to sell or dispose of in whatever manner he
thought proper the impressions so taken. The At-
torney-General stated that this question was one of the
greatest importance to all booksellers and engravers,
and that his client, both. for his own sake and for the
sake of the trade whom he represented, was deter-
mined to carry it to a final settlement. The Court
had already expressed an opinion that the queoon of
right would be better tried by an action of trover
than by another issue. The more effectually to
bring the question of right to a decision, the Learned
Gentleman had to move .that the Court would re-
strain the defendant from defeatieg - the action by
any formal objections either to the proceedings or to
the evidence by which the case was supported.
Mr..HILL, who attended from the Common Law
Courts on behalf of the plaintiff, had framed the
pleas in the best manner he could, to try effectually
the right, first of the 'defendant to retain impressions
of the plates; secondly, of the right to retain and
sell them; and thirdly, he had introduced a count
for piracy.
Mr. HORNE (with whom was Mr. GIRDLESTONE,
sett.) on the part of the defendant, trusted his
Honour would consider that there had been already
in this cause enough of motions and of cross-motions
of the suit in Chancery—enough of issues and of ac-
tions in the Courts belowetiough of money paid;
and that here the litigation ought to terminate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in, reply, said that it
was of great importance to the bookselling and pub-
lishing trade, that the question as to the right of en-
' gravers to take and sell in the market so many copies
should be finallysettled. He therefore persevered.
The Vi CE-CHANCEr,L©R said, that the right to
sell was certainly the important question in the
cause, and that right had not in the issue already
tried gone to the Jury. The right to retain did not
necessarily imply the right to sell. Of this position
a familiar instance was afforded by letters which the
parties to whom they were sent had a right to re-
tain, but had no right to dispose,ef. The question
of the right, to take and the right to sell were here,
•however, so intimately blended with each other upon
the custom, as questions of fact, that he could not
separate them, and be must therefore send them to a
Jury in the form which he considered the most effec-
tual for bringing the question of right to issue—an
action in trover.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MARCH 8.
STANLEY AND ANOTHER V. LADBROKE AND CO.

This was an action brought by the assignees of Hobson
and Marshal, to recover the value of seven Bills of Exchange
for 2,193/. Is., deposited before the bankruptcy with the
defendants, who are bankers in the city.
Mr. Caatrata,r, (with whom was Mr. PLATT) stated
the plaintiffs' case. It appeared that Hobson and Mar-
shal were corn factors, and kept an account with the
defendant.. Becoming embarrassed in Dec. 1825, they
called a meeting of their friends, at which it was re-
solved, that if they could procure an advance of
3,0001. on the security of landed estates from
the defendants, and also induce them to 'discount several
bills of exchange, then in the hands of Hobson and Mar-
shal, the house might go on. The defendants, however,
refused to snake the required advance ; upon which Hobson
and Marshal stopped payment, and subsequently became
bankrupts. The defendants then refused to give op the
bills which the bankrupts had sent them to discount,
alleging that they retained them as a security, for a
balance due on the bankrupts' account. The assignees,
however, insisted that the bills were only sant to Ladbroke
and Co. for inspection, and they were not discounted.
Both the bankrupts and several other witnesses were ex-
amined in support of the plaintiffs' ease.
Sir Jams ScaaLarr then addressed the Jury for the
defendants, and contended that the hills had been discounted
by Ladbroke and Co., who actually paid the bankrupts'
bill for 1,0001. due on the same day, from a part of the pro-
ceeds of the discount.
Witnesses were then examined to prove that the bills
were left with Ladbroke and Co. to be discounted, and
that they were discounted and passed through all the books
of the house the same day.
Mr. Castraeu, having replied,
Lord TENTritnitti summed up, and left it to the Jury,
whether the bills were given to the defendants to discount,
and pass the amount to the bankrupts' credit, or whether
the bills wets only given for inspection.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs--Da-
mages 1,1931.
The Court after disposing of one other cause of no pub-
lic interest, adjourned to Monday, the 14th of April next.

THE LEAD TRADE.—Petitions to both
Houses of Parliament, from the inhabitants of the parish of
Alston, Northumberland, are now in the course of signa-
ture, praying far a revision of the laws relating to the im-
portation of foreign lead and lead ore; and it is expected
such petitions will be general from all the mining districts.
—Sheffield Iris.