The Sun.
London, England, 1829-12-05 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

In the report of the Westminster Sessions last
week, a case was given in which the Chairman, F.
CoNsT, Esq., was stated, after having sentenced a
young pickpocket, named Harris, to seven years'
transportation, to have called him back, in conse-
quence of some insulting expressions which he had
addressed to him, and altered the sentence of trans.
portation for life. The affair having been made the
subject of remark in various newspapers, and the
legality of the course alleged to have been pursued
questioned, the CHAIRMAN saw fit yesterday, iu the
course of the proceedings at the Middlesex Sessions,
to give the following contradiction, or rather expla-
nation, of the affair.
. .

The CHAIRMAN found, from looking over the
different newspapers, that he had been undergoing
correction therein for an act which he never did. It
was said there that he. had changed a prisoner's
sentence from transportation for seven years to trans-
portation for life, merely because the prisoner ad-
dressed some offensive expressions to him. That he
never did do. They were well written articles which
he had seen, but then they were founded on
what WAS not the'fact. The circumstances of the case
were these :—A boy of the name of Harris, a most
incorrigible thief, just liberated from six months'
confinement for a similar offence, was brought to the
Westminster Sessions, with some other boys, to
be tried for picking pockets. Thinking him a pro-
per character to be made an example of, he deter-
mined on trying him first, hoping that the sentence
the other boys heard pronounced on him would make
a beneficial impression on their minds. He was
convicted of stealing four handkerchiefs, and he
(the Chairman) then addressed him, and asked him
why he changed his name so often, and other ques-
tions, to which he gave shrewd answers. After ad-
dressing some observations to him, he sentenced
the boy to seven years' transportation. As he was
being removed from the dock, he said something,
but what it was he (the Chairman) did not know.
In consequence, however, of something said to him
by some gentlemen who were sitting with him on
the Bench, lie ordered the boy to be brought back,
and told him that the Court, on reconsideration,
thought his a case which ought to be punished by
transportation for life. But when he said this, he
never meant to so sentence him. Every gentleman
in Court knew what he meant, and that his object
was to impress on the other boys the danger of the
course t
Phuad ben done in that way. rstiirlge
and he had reason to
lo o theym e were
good
Im-
mediately after pronouncing the second sentence, lie
s
leaned over to Mr. Gyiby, the cleat of the peace,
and told him to take no notice of it. This was all
that occurred, and he must say he did regret having
been run at in the manner he had been.
Mr, BRODMCK saw the report in the newspapers,

and he was astonished on reading it. He had known
the Chairman often lessen the sentence, but never
add to it. He considered immediately that there
was some mistake.

Mr. ALLEY said that any gentleman who knew
the Chairman must have instantly been convinced
that the report was not true. At the same time it
was justice to the reporter to say he was not to
blame,for the Chairman certainly did use the words,
though not in the sense supposed by the reporter.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Disc. 4.
SWEET AND OTHERS V. ♦RCHBOLD.

Mr. PEPYS moved to dissolve the injunction
which had been granted against the defendant, re-
straining him from publishing his Common Pleas
Practice. In 1822, the defendant, whose King's
Bench Practice had sold very successfully, entered
into an agreement with the plaintiffs to prepare a se-
cond edition of that work, and one relating to the
practice of the Court of Common Pleas, for 6501.
Mr. Archbold did not complete his contract, and in
1827 an action was brought against him for the
breach. That action was compromised by the de-
fendant giving a cognovit for securing the money,
and which also contained a proviso that nothing
therein should extend to permit the defendant to sell
any copies of the proposed work on the Common
Pleas until the money should be paid; but that upon
such payment, all the parts of the work already.pre-
pared, and which were then in the plaintiff's pos-
session, should be delivered up to the defendant.
The money was paid, the printed sheets delivered
up, and the defendant had since completed the work.
The plaintiffs, alleging that the work when so com-
pleted contained parts of the former work on the
King's Bench, the copyright of which was theirs,
filed a bill, on :which the injunction now appealed
against was granted. Counsel contended that it
ought to be dissolved, because there wait no piracy ;
because, by the terms of the cognovit, the defend-
ant was at liberty to publish his new work as soon
as he should have paid the money, which he had
done; and because the application to the Court was
made too late. The work which they now charged
to be a piracy had been published is November, and
the plaintiffs did not come to the Court to complain
until March last. The Counsel, therefore, contended
that there was no ground for the interference of a
Court of Equity, but that the parties should be left
to such remedy as they might have at law.
A proposition was made for trying the question
upon terms, in consequence of which Mr. Arch-
bold's solicitor was directed to go to Guildhall to
nsult his client.

Mr. Koa, in the mean time, proceeded on the
same side with Mr. Pepys.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the injunc-
tion, and insisted that the later work was in many
respects a piracy of the former. _

The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed an opinion,
that if the case were to be decided at law, the
parties should agree upon the same terms on which
it should be sent for trial.
Some discussion ensued between the Counsel as
to these terms, Mr. PEPYS offering to go to trial if
the plaintiffs would admit their signature to the
cognovit. Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed to this,
but insisted that the injunction should continue in
the mean time, to prevent the sale of die work by
the defendant ; and the Counsel differing as to this,
the case proceeded.

Mr. WRIGHT and Mr. ATKINSON were heard on
the same side ; and Mr. PEPYS replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR seemed to be of opinion
that the case must be tried at law, but a difficulty
arising as to the costs, and security to be given by
the defendant if the result should be against him,
his Lordship said, he would say what he thought
about both points in the morning.