The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

-----
COURT OF CHANCERY.--(Tats DO,
NIRO? V. DURNAUD• ,,t.' tia; i 3
When the Loan c
_HA/4'CM°' took his seat► the r--"I, 1
this case, personally applied for his Lordship's alsistome t, I"ye
the appeal heard. d root
huertheird
The Loan CHANCELLOR understood him to ask for ..111-4„, i
a day or two. _ to sd•
which
harit
would
dvedbe tinhiaptostshileileproopeerrttoy ivio:tb:it:grrsett...p.nriteuttiot;i:-
His LORDSHIP then said, it was quite out of his power 100.
vancet the hearing of this appeal to the prejudice of
Ore Mier:110o
getting into the hands of persons to whom it did rot i"".- ''
His LORDSHIP felt sorry for it, and under
ebxiprillahineedshhouituldsedlf.ispose of it in judgme... 11
would have been happy to have heard the appeal out of th
nary course, could he have done so, but it was not iu his porigr'.'
if, however, Mr. Nerut could get his, Counsel to attend tos ::
he would do his utmost to
the appeal on any day on which the Court did not regularly 7'o
he (bis Lordship) would most willingly attend on that day
hear it.
Mr. . Neatyr thanked his Lordship, and left the Court, 00031:
suggestion. prevail oa his Couttsel to meet
ionu out Lis
0 : Air.
c a ItN
; a a :dr.
f

Mr. IlAcer.—"-
bc:oteretll: eat lehtiradsai
t t°lvn toamendthe Vice Ch • llors minute
the
his absence from $ ante ring
he rhaedwrtae
arostx RtooTt, h a
is aharseSuerfri
the cf:nioriel
town) of an order in this matter respec- , oe
been incurred. It was of importance thr
to
rob t
Ithe'
beets
here should be understood. In this matter tW''),tl be
ittieyeel.t directed by his Honour the Vice• Chancellor,, ita a
law",
al' ; the one was, whether the party was, in p!)''' ti,e
bankrupt; and if this was not found in the otfirinatiee;,.inv
next was, whether the Commission had been; issued fr ,' „
lend •
y and collusively Upon the • 1 f the first oitti
?
the
petitioning creditor under the Commission WWI, 50"0
therefore the time of the second issue became unnecssary:. lIPO,O
oh , retnrn of the postetz to this Court, the Commission
tue,
11 ered to be suspended with costs. There were ra'l,•cl-1
hail been incurred in preparing to try the second issue, lot
the Registrar had not included in the note be 6el
taken of the order, giving, costs generally, and bad " otovi
afterwards to introduce this clause ; but the proposition ,
to
to be submitted wan, that the parties were b°°°‘ op
have prepared themselves fur trial upon the gd issue, that the c
jer
of such preparation were incidental, in the execution of the asrbef
directing the issues to be tried, and that the parties by wig" . et
had been incurred were as much entitled to theft as to the "
of the trial of the first issue. inei'
The LORD CHANCTI.I.OR was of opinion that they vie" i of
dental costs, and that, therefore, Ile ought to order the PsYrPeT" -
them, which he now did. '

tendance, having
NADEAU COR ' _ttla.-114 THE MATTER OF JACJCSOX, A atigat.94.
Haase stated that the bankrupt iu thi* matter was io at.
from Warwick gaol, and be presumed himself to be esti'
fled to take precedence in eallit,g the Conrt's atteotion *hi*
bankyupt's case. been brought up, topou a writ of 1100
Mr. HART interposed, and said he expeetea mstructione

loon as theicould be prepared, but the bankrupt had thought pro-
per to bring himself up here without having given notice.
His LORDSHIP *aid' the parties were entitled to notice.
Mr. Honwr, then hoped that the other side would not put the
bankrupt to the necessity of being sent back to gaol, and being
brought up again.
Halm said, he would be prepared in two hours after he
had received his instructions. - •

It was sten arranged that the matter.should come on to-mor-
row morning, and that the Bankrupt should remain in town
till then.

SCHREVELIUS' GREEK LEXICON, TRANSLATED
INTO ENGLISH.—INJUNCTION.
JONES v. BALDWIN AND OTHERS.,
Mr. SILADWELL stated that be was instructed to apply, exparte,
for an injunction against the defendants, to restrain them, their
servants or agents, from selling or permitting to be sold any copies
of a work called " Schreveliute Greek Lexicon, translated into
English." The motion was made upon bill and affidavit filed.
The plaintiff was a gentleman of the name of John Jones, and the
defendants were Messrs. Valpy, Baldwin, and Cradock. The
statement was, that-the plaintiff, prior to the year 1923, compiled
and wrote a work, upon an original plan, which was a Greek
and English Lexicon ; it was printed by Longman and Co. in
Bvo. ; about 1,800 copies of it were published in the year 1823,
and in 1825 nearly the whole were add off. In 1825
the plaintiff published a second edition, by the same per-
Ws, Messrs. Longman and Co., with considerable additions.
hi 1825, or rather in the month of April, 1826, the defendants
also published a work, which they entitled Schrevelius' Greek
Lexicon translated into English, and sent a copy of it to the
plaintiff, acknowledging that they had made use of the plaintiff's
work to a trifling extent in their compilation. The plaintiff oh-
terved, upon looking into the work, about six 'or seven instances,
in Which passages had been taken from his book, but not sus-
pecting that there had been any material piracy, he took no fur-
ther notice of it at that time. In August last, he took it into his
heal more minutely to examine the work, and, upon" comparing
nne.third of his own book with the same proportion of the de-
fendant's, he found that in uo less than 2,300 passages hie work
had been invaded. ,

His Lounsurr wished to know why the plaintiff had not come
here earlier.
Mr. SHADWELL said that his client had been ►►linded by the
apparent candid conduct of the defendants, and that since August
lAA he had been busily engaged in making the selection of the
pirated passages.—lnjunction granted.

WELLESLEY V. DUKE OF BEAUTYMT.

His Lo8ps;;;;;;11;o1;;erv;i this case in the paper of to-day,
hat he understood, when it was last mentioned, that both sides
were to have sent him all their new affidavits iu the course of last
"hp still he had not received one of them.
Mr• HART said. there had been a mistake on the part of the
Registrar in putting it into the paper; it was understood at the
tar to be adjourned until both sides had had ample time to pre-
pare themselves.

His LonDsHie bad no objection to its being so understood now,
"ad accordingly the ease stands adjourned sine die.
PRIVILEGE OF ATTORNIES.
WAINWRIGHT V. SMITH.

Mr. Feeerove moved, on the part of the defendant, for an
order of this Court, to set aside a bail-bond given by his client to
the Sheriff, under the following short circumstances :—The
tiff is a clerk in Court, the defendant is an Attorney at Kidder-
minster ; the plaintiff, as indorsee upon a promissory-note, having
4 demand against the defendant, and not being able to procure the
l""Yi arrested him; the defendant gave the bail-bond in ques-
tion, and now applied to have it set aside on the ground that he
was not liable to an arrest, even by a clerk in Court.
Mr. HART opposed the motion.
ilis Loansuir said, that ever since he had come into this
Court, which lie was sorry to say was now between forty and fifty
Years ago, all authority had been against the proposition now sub-
mitted on the part of this defendant, and the Court was therefore
11"' called upon to beat down all preceding authority on the sub-
Jvct--a length of practice being authority—but which he certainly
could not do. He would, however, look hack into the history of
',Solicitor entering this Court, and if he found such a privilege
"tending to him, as was now contended for, lie would hesitate
before he took that privilege away from the Solicitors of the
Court.

Mr. HART supposed, if the Court should say nothing further
I'Pon the ease, the parties might understand the motion to be dis-
missed with costs.
His Lonossir said, they certainly might.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tins DAY.)
(ilefln-e the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a common Jury.)

THK KING V. HUNT.
Mr. HUTCHINS opened the pleadings:
!sir. 8c %et rrr stated, that this was a prosecution against John
!lent, the '
proprietor and publisher of the _Examiner newspaper,
11.4, I;4virig published a libel, reflecting on the character of Nicholas
a man highly celebrated for his musical talents. The
libel was of the same nature as the one for which the proprietor
of rite Sunday Monitor had been prosecuted a few dive ago ; but
!k Was not so malignant, nor so full of virnlence or reproach, yet
tt ryas of such a cast, as by the law of England was deemed
libel. He (Mr. Scarlett) would rest here and say no
rir!ore on the subject, were it not for the example set
trt by Mr. Brougham on Saturday last, who argued
the charge made agaiust the prosecutor, was acquiesced
fP'l his not adopting that mode of proceeding against the de-
want on on that occasion, which could give him an opportunity of
tta,bli'hing his innocence, and who undertook to satisfy the Jury,
at he who called a man a rogue, a robber, a felon, &c.- was
I'uocent, and now ought to be acquitted. It was well-known
at there were modes of proceeding in such a case as this,
ti 4141 Y) by action, criminal information, or by indictment ; but
f
,r 614 his own (Mr. Searletee) experience, he knew that whatever
the " the prosecutor adopted, the defendant was sure to say that
,Proper 11104 would be to proceed by either of the other two.
"e Proceeded by action, the defendant was sure to say that the
pr°leeutor dare not appear in the box himself. If he proceeded by in-
' "went, it would be said, that I e dare not give the defendant an
t'PPortunity of establishing the truth of the charge. The happy
leen libelled, hail always a choice of remedies, and whichever
'" took the libeller never failed to complain of it. Though the
t°,6eentor in this case was distinguished as a musician, yet he
r`i not deem himself of such importance as that he ought to
°ruble the Court of King's Bench, to grant him e criminal
ditiwriutstion which should be granted only to people of high
,tiktion and eminence in society; and in cases likely to induce
',l"!e.aels. of the peace, an indictment before a Grand Jury
.was the
4legt:tireate mode of proceeding by the common law, and if no evi-
ji 4 e°"iii be admitted respecting the truth or falsehood of the
letions contained in the libel, the Jury had no right (as Mr.
4i the has said) to assume the truth of them on that account.
41' the defendant had any excuse or palliation, he might offer them to
th" Court when brought up for judgment, but in this stage of
%,..! Proceedings they could not be admitted, and it would be of no
,17,1t,0 put the prosecutor in the box to deny the charge, when
o "wild not he admitted in evidence. He (Mr. S.) would
say of himself, that he would be exceedingly sorry to say any
thing disreputable of the defendant, whom lie,k new to be a gentleman
most ineorruptibTe eapshiet,
t I not deem capable of btin
and stubborn integrity, and whom
influenced by malice towards the
Prosecutor 41
one of the duties of the couditlitots
Publi*hiP the ggTphin question tion ; but it was
not to admit any thing into h •
of newspapers to take care
injure the feelings, the character,t en. columns calculated to
doubt but that the author.
There could be no dosor property of any man,
this paragraph
who, it appeared, was an nnonymoui correspondent, had
been a
rival of the prosecutor's, and not succeeding .1 :
and of injuring his successful com-
petitor. It was much to be regretted, that a man of Mr. Hones
tiller of life and character should lend himself
to the de/signs of
t„ theileh persons. The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read
"hel As follows: