The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-29 00:00:00

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL,
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7. —Wind S. S. W.—High
water 51 minutes past two.---Arrived the Rose,
Andrette, from Havre de Grace; St. Maloes packet, Til-
lory, from Jersey ; Indus, Mallabar, from Aliramichi ;
Three Sisters, Milton) from Alacaio ; Napoleon, Smith,
from New York ; Ellen, Costa, from Riga; Olive, Hug-
ger, from Carthagena ; Earl of Roden, Spencer, from
Dundalk ;- Mary Brade, Watson, from Bremen ; Hope,
from Chepstitw.
CrEaarn •OUTWA RDS. --The Waakzamhrede, De
Weird, forlAntwero; !ante, Little, for Leghorn; Ana-
creon,

4. LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 28.

10.AKEAIORE V. THE GLAMORGANSHIRE CANAL COMPANY

The Court was occupied to-day in hearing the
arguments on one of the motions conoected with this
matter. It not_being concluded at the usual hour
for The Court's rising, some conversation ensued, re-
specting the time' at which the arguments should be
resumed.

It was suggested by counsel, that it would be
necessary for Mr. Blakemore to go into the country
to procure materials fur answering one of the motions,
anti that he could not return by that time. In the
mean time he was desirous to have the judgment of
the Court on the motion he had first made.
The Lora) CHANCELLOR was quite ready, if the
parties wished it, to give judgment in that case
without waiting for the conclusion of the other mat-
ter. ills Lordship then proceeded to state, that
the motion was for committing to the Fleet Mr.
Rees, the officer of the Glamorganshire Canal Com,
pony, for a breach of the injunction of the Court
restraining him from deepening or widening the
canal. Although the case was one of some suspi-
cion, yet his Lordship could not feel justified in re-
sorting to the extreme measure of committing the
officer of the defendants upon mere suspicion, nor
upon evidence so unsatisfactory as that before him.
The motion must therefore be dismissed with costs.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov: 28.
M'PHENEy V. SWEET.

In this ease an application had been made, on a
former occasion, for an injunctio►► to restrain the de-
fendant from publishing a new edition of Bythewood's
Precedents in Conveyancing. The grounds on which
this application rested were that the plaintiff and
defendant were joint proprietors in the work in
question ; that M'Pheney, with the consent of the
defendants bad employed a Mr. Stewart to edit a
new edition of it, and that, in spite of this agreement,
Mr. Sweet had engaged a Mr. Jarman to prepare a
new edition of the same work, which edition he was
publishing in his own name.
His Hosocit had refused to grant the injunction
ex-parte, and the case stood over in order that notice
of the application might be given to the defendant.
Such notice• having been given, the case now came
before the Court again.
Mr. HORNE (with whom were Mr. Sugden and
Mr. Parker) appeared in support of the application.
Mr. BICKERSTETII opposed it, and the application
was dismissed with costs.

MURRAY V. DUGDALE.

This was an application for an injunction to re-
strain the defendant from publishing certain poems of
Lord Byron. Mr. Murray stated that he was the
proprietor of the copyright of Childe Harold, and
that the defendant had commenced the publication
of that poem in numbers, promising, on the wrap-
pers of those numbers, to publish all the poems of
Lord Byron in one volume.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, having inspected the
number handed up to him, immediately granted the
injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 28.
FX- PA itTE NUNN.

This was an application for aNvrit of habeas cor-
Pus, to bring up the body of James Nunn from the
gaol at Harwich, for the purpose of his being dis-
charged out of custody.
The SOLICITOR-GENRRAL and Mr. SIIEPPERD
now showed cause against the rule nisi ; and Mr.
PLATT addressed the Court in support of it.
The CouRT were of opinion that the conviction
was right, and discharged the rule.
nor, DEMISE LEICUI V. LEIGH.
In this case, which has been pending several
years, an application had been made on a former day
to discharge ju
dgment, as in the case
lion suit. a rule for udgment,

Sir J.scARLETT now appeared to oppose the
rule; and Mr. ADAM, the COMMON SERGEANT, and
Mr. KELLY to support it.

The excuse for not proceeding to trial was, that
the claim of the lessor of the plaintiff to the Leigh
peerage was pending in the House of Lords, and
that it was considered that that claim should be dis-
posed of before the cause, which relates to the title

PRICE 7D.

of the lessor of the plaintiff to the estate as heir-at-
law, was brouht on for trial.
The CouRT, observing that such a cause ought
not to be kept hanging over the head of a party for
so many years, said the rule must he made absolute,
unless the lessor of the plaintiff produced an affidavit,
showing that he was barred by the statute of limi-
tations from bringing another action.

DOE, DEMISE CAKTIIEW V. attENTos.
Mr. BROUGHAM applied to the Court to allow
the trial at bar, which had been ordered in this case,
to be brought on in the course of Hilary Term next.
Their Lordships would remember, that the Attorney-
General had stated, a few days since, while the trial
of the cause of " Rowe v. Brenton" was proceeding,
that he should have no objection to allow the notes
of the viva voce evidence adduced on that trial, to
be made use of on the trial of this cause; and, under
the peculiar circumstances of this case, he (Mr.
Brougham) trusted that the Court would allow the
trial to take place in the course of next term.
Lord TENTERDEN said, the Court could make no
such order. He thought it not unlikely between this
time and Hilary Term, tome communication would
be had between the parties, which would altogether
prevent the necessity of bringing the cause to trial.

EX-PARTE ROW.

The .SOLICITOR-GENERAL was instructed to show
cause against the rule obtained by Mr. Brougham on
Monday last, for a writ of habeas corpus, command-
ing Mr. Henry Winchester, of Buckingham-street,
Strand, to bring up the body of Sarah, his
daughter, the wire of Wm. Row, or Rouse, whom,
as alleged, he had detained at his house against her
will, and against the consent of her husband.
Mr. BROUGHAM (after speaking to his client) said
this was a family affair, and it was most desirable to

the parties, in order that the existing breaches might
not be widened, that public discussion should be
avoided. Mr. Row was, of course, desirous of
having an opportunity of communicating with his
wife, acid if that were allowed on the part of Mr.
Winchester, there would he no objection to letting
the rule be enlarged.
The SOLICITOR-GXNFRAI. thought there would
be no objection to the husband seeing his wife at
the house of a common friend.
The rule was Olen enlarged to the Bth of De•
cember.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Nov. 28.
THE INDIAN.-WACES.
This was a question as to the admission of the
allegations on a summary petition for abstraction of
a mariner's wages ; and the question was, whether
the wages were due•under the circumstances of the
case.
Sir C. ROBINSON admitted the allegations, in or-
der that the question in this case might be fully
argued on more specific facts.