The Sun.
London, England, 1821-02-26 00:00:00

LAW IN'T'ELLIGENCE.

COURT ('F CHANCERY, Fen. 24.
DRURY-LANE AN!) COBURG THEATRES.

ELLISTON AND OTHERS versus GLOSSOP, JONES,

AND OTHERS.

Mr. AGAR, 011 behalf of the defendants, ad-
dressed the Court in reply to the amended affi-
davit which the plaintiffs had lately put in, and
contended that the Injunction had originally been
obtained against the defendants on insufficient
grounds.
Mr. HART, for the plaintiffs, denied that he
had obtained an Injunction without making an
affidavit. There was an affidavit made in the
first instance, but it was left at the office of the
Master to sign his name to some interlineations,
and, therefore, no undue advantage had been
taken of the Court. Ile denied the insinuation
that his principal client (Mr. Elliston) had ever
wished to embarrass the defendants ; for, on the
very morning that he obtained the Injunction, he
sent over to the proprietors of the Coburg The-
atre to apprise them of it, at the same time offer-
ing them the liberty of performing the piece that
night.
The !Amu CHANCELLOR said it would be pro-
per in this case to afford the defendants an op-
portunity of seeing the affidavits of Mr. Elliston
for substantiating the identity of the two per-
formances.

Mr. HART said he should not deny the right
of the proprietors of the Cobourg Theatre to see
the affidavit of his client. All he wished to show
was, that not only the dialogue, part of which
was original, but even the names of the charac-
ters were similar to the piece ►►ow performing at
Drury-lane Theatre, whereas the defendants said
they had not copied that piece ; but he was
willing to give time, if desired, to produce the
prompters' books on both sides.
Mr. AGAR, in adverting to the affidavit of Mr.
Elliston, was desirous of knowing Oat was
meant by the words" composed and translated."
He denied the plaintiff's right to amend his case by
interlineations, and contended, that he ought to
have made a fresh affidavit when he stated that
he had employed a person to translate and com-
pose the piece.
The Loan Cil AN C ELLO a here observed, that
if himself and another were separately to trans-
late one of Terence's plays, each of them would
unquestionably have a right to the translation so
made. But it was certainly quite another thing,
upon the acting of a play, to procure a short-hand
writer to take it down.

Mr. HART contended that his client's affidavit
now stated that the piece in question was com-
posed and translated, or partly translated, and
partly written, by Mr. Howard Payne. lie also
wished to show that great part of the plaintiff's
piece was not translated but written, and also
that the names of the characters were different
from the French. N.OW it so happened that the
piece performed at the Cohonrg Theatre had
partly the same dialogue, and generally the same

names, which could not have happened if the
defendants had translated from the French. lie
therefore saggested that it would be better for Mr.
Agar to prodace the 'Prompter's book on his side,
that of Mr. Elliston's being now in Court, so that
his Lordship might compare them.
Mr. AGAR had no objection tc the last proposal ;
and it was understood that the Cobourg prompt
book would be verified on affidavit.
Tile Lotto CH tNcuLt.ott here observed, that if
the parties could be prepared by that time, he
would hear the case again on Tuesday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FED. 21.
COLLINS V. OItEENt.

- This was ttn action upon a patent. The plain-
tiff is the assignee of-a certain musical instrument
called " the Kent bugle," being an improve-
ment upon the Common bugle by the addition of
keys, after the manner of the Mae and elarkhet ;
and the complaint was, that the defendant, by
making an improved bugle, carrying six keys in,
stead of five, had infringed upo,n, the right of the
original inventor. The patent und4,-.r which Mr.
Collins claimed was obtained by Mr. Jlalliday,
of the Cavan militia, who first made " the- Kent
bugle,". and the defendant, after attempting to
impeach the originality of the invention, by show-
ing that more than 20 years since keys had been
applied to an instrument called the serpent, at-
tacked the specification. The specification (as
usual) was found insufficient : and-

The LORD CHIEF .hsTIcE, with reluctatice,
nonsuited the plaintiff.

BUSBY AND CO. V. CORM.

This case was of considerable importance to
persons in trade. It was an action brought by
the plaintiffs for 19.1. 155., the amount of a bonnet
splendidly trimmed with ostrich feathers, and
which was delivered as long back as the year
1815. The defendant had, at tl►e time of the
delivery of the bonnet, been recognised as Lady
Hawke, being at that time residing in the house
of the Noble Lord of that name; since that
some difference had taken place between the de-
fendant and his Lordship, and he had refused to
allow her to use that name any longer,as she denied
that shewas his wife. The action was consequently
brought against her in her maiden name, that be-
Corri.
Mr. Sc IRLETT, f(lr the defence, addressed the
Court with his accustomed feeling and ability,
and called the Rev. Dr. Laughlin and several
other witnesses to prove that his client was ac-
knowledged Lady Hawke by his Lordship him-
self, and that he directed the children he had by
a former wife to call her" Mamma,"•and had
also ordered a work-box, with the name of Lady
Hawke, on the shield.
Mr. SCA R LETT said, if the plaintiff recovered,
his client must go to prison, as it would subject
her to time payment of debts to a considerable
amount that were contracted when she was living
with Lord Hawke.

The CHIEF JUSTICE observed that this lady
had been introduced every where as the wife of
Lord Hawke, and the credit was given under
that impression. The plaintiff was then called
and uonsuited.
THE KING V. THE REGENT'S CANAL. COMPANY.

This was an indictment against the defendants
for a nuisance, in havina erected a bridge 'Over
the canal, at the point where it crosses the Kings-
land-road, of a less width by several feet than
the original road was, and thereby greatly in-
conveniencing the public by contracting the
public highway. The Jury found the defendants
guilty, subject to the opinion oft the Court on a
point of law arising out of the construction of the
Act of Parliament.

COUNTRY MARKETS AND FAIRS,

DURING THE LAST WEEK.

WI N DSOR

Ft b. 24.

Wheat, per Id 121 Os a 171 10(1
Bailey, per hl 441 a 47s
Oats