The Sun.
London, England, 1817-12-09 00:00:00

In the Matter of LATHAM.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—." I have made up my
mind as to what the minutes in this case ought to
be. I shall pen them, and hand them to the par-
ties to-morrow."

The remainder of the day, until four o'clock,
was occupied in the hearing motions,.ot no inte-
rest, except to the parties concerned.

ROLLS COURT, DEC. 8.

JUDGMENT.

!r WHO IS' WHO ? OR, THE DOUBLE IMPOSTOR,"

V. " THE STAGE."

CHARLES WHITTINGH AM and JOHN ARLISS,
V. T. J. WOOLER.

[The circumstances of this case we reported on
Friday the sth inst. It will be recollected that
Mr. Wooler was his own Counsel.]

The MASTER of the 'Row.—The answer of the
defendant contains very particular and material
evidence. He says, his work, The Stage, is a
Magazine and a Review, and he was in the habit
of giving criticisms on the performances of all new
plays, and also after they were published ; and
that he actually did review this Farce in his Noi»-
ber X. of The Stage, and those extracts in Num-
bers XIII. and XIV. were only to illustrate what
he had before written „and that he never intended
to publish the whole Farce. This he had an un-
doubted right to do. The Numbers complained
of did not contain any one -whole act, but a part
of two scenes ; and, fur the Purpose of reviewing
them, he was justified in using th'em. The case
of Macklin versus Richards, (looted by the Learn-
ed,Counsel for the plaintiffs, instead of being in
support of their case, was against it, as was also
that of Dodsley and Kinnersley. In the latter,
the Lord Chancelloy gave no decision, hut said
they might apply to a Court of Law. Here are
only seven pages published in this third -book,
out of d 0 which the Farce-contains. You must
shew that the.work is invaded when you come to
ask for a final decree. I am ,of opinion, there-
fore, from the whole circumstances, that the plain-
tiffs' bill must be dismissed, and with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dxc. 8.

THE KING V. CHIPPENDALE.

This was an indictment for perjury against
respectable Attorney, alleged to have been com-
mitted in an affidavit sworn in a cause in the Court
of Chancery.
Mr. SCALILETT, who led the prosecution, la-
mented that he should have to charge a respect-
able man, as he knew Mr.. Chippendale to be,
with so foul a charge as that of having committed
perjury. But at the same time it became his pub-
lic duty to lay the case before the Jury for their
decision. lie then 'stated the facts of the case ae
follows:—That in a cause in Chancery, of the name
of Leybourne against Grettan, Dlr. Chippendale
acted as Solicitor for the defendant. The Bill
was for a specific -performance, calling upon the
'defendant to complete a contract for the purchase
of certain premises in the parish of St. Matthew,
Bethnal-green, and St. Dunstan's, Stepney. The
defendant had urged a variety of objections to the
title,,which was referred td Master Campbell;
and it became a question before him whether the
parties should go into all the objections, or only
the proMinent ones ; and .I.lr. Chippendale, in an
affidavit in the cause, had sworn that it was
agreed to abandon all but three leading objections.
And this affidavit was alleged to be untrue, and
that Mr. Chippendale had committed perjury in
the swearing of it..
To make out the case, Master Campbell, Mr.
Wingfield, and Mr.Venner, Barristers, were called,
who were in the cause in Chancery, and they did
not understand that the objections, except three,
were abandoned.

Mr. 'POPPING, for the defendant, said it was
impossible that a man of Mr. Chippendale's cha-
racter could have acted intentionally wrong, and
that even if the fact were not as he had sworn, he
must have done it in error.

Mr. Preston, the Barrister antl Conveyancer,
who was also- in the cause in Chancery, was
called, and he stated that he understood the busi-
ness exactly as Mr. Chippendale-had sworn in his
affidavit.

Mr. SCARLBTT immediately said, that after the
evidence given by so respectable a Member of the
Profession, he could not suppose that Mr. Chip-
pendale had acted intentionally wrong.
Mr. Justice ABBOTT concurred, and the de-
fendant was immediately acquitted.