The Sun.
London, England, 1816-07-19 00:00:00

. ;

titir-nraterSt, artet th'i?iliseharge no the rime-
roils vollies (it !Inall shot ;-tvrtieh had been already
flied upon thetll. tife 'then Onsillanimously says,
Now, my deaf Wilberforce, What are we to
do next ? Were' they here, we email justly say
to 'them, " Go.; clothe yourselves in sackcloth
and' }3/4SlieS, and endeavok to atone by repentance
for the guilt, which now hangs ova yon, of the
innocent'bloeid you Naive been the means of shed-
ding by your inflammatory writings'!" Mr. Ste-
phen ought, we think, to he aware that it is not
'any concession or:allology from", Or recantation
by, him that can" atone tor his most !unfounded
fabrications and'calumnies against the nnoffending
community of British Subjects in the West-India
Colonies. It is to the verdict of the High Court
of Parliament that we booli for that unqualified
testimony of our innocence of the crime, laid to
our charge, which shall tiittisfy our injured honour,
and soothe our wounded feelings.

•
* Some acconnt of Mr.. Stephen may not ho Uninteresting
to *many of onr readers. 1 )liflpllolllto in the expectations
which he had formed of socceeiliog in the Profession of a Bar-
rister in one of the Wind Ward Wands, he returned to hg-
hind, and, being a loan .sif some talent, he Was selected by
blr. Pitt to write the Pamphlet, " War in Disguise, or the
Frauds of the Neutral Flags," the result of which was to in-
volve Great. Britain'io war with the .United States of Ame-
rica, from which she has retreated with no great honour to
herself, and given occasion to a, nation, already proud and
inflated with vanity, to vaunt of haring been the conquerors
of the Conquel ors ut Enrope.—flaritig connected
,hiniself in
relationship to Mr. IVilberforce by marriage, and pleit,eil
with his own display of casuistical arguments and legal so-
phistry in Ids former production, he has been 'found by thii
Gentleman alit Initrument for hisimri.ose; and wearetoo well.
aware of the success which. he has bud, by the, publication
of his "Reasons" for estahliShing a Registry of Slayer in the
British Colonies," in increasing the tide of popular-prejudice
against the Weit ludiAns ; -although• it may prove fortanate
fur them,. that, .by his 'assistance, the questiou Ills been
brought to that issue, which has been the means of rousing
them from their supineness acid lethargy in' a 'vindiCation of
their eliaracter from his malicious' aspersions.. He is not yet
contented with being the author of so much ;mischief, hot
lois just sent forth from the press," Observations upon the
propriety and duty a compelling Spain to relinquish her
Slave Trade in Northern Africa e! and we have no doubt it
will give lino high gratification if he can he the Jahns, of in-
volving Great Britain in another war, Mr. Stephen, asyveß
as many ()Uteri of the Soisits, has not lest sight of the lauvcs
an, I ff 54.0.1 for; altliongh the Edinburgh Reviewers say Ito bus
retired•from•Parliareent -Avon groands•purely conscientious,
and connected with the measure he hos brought forward in
regard to ourselves, we know the true reasim to he that he is
satisfied with having procured for himself the.luerative office
of a blaster iu Chancery, theholdiog of which he probably
thinks incompatible with a. Seat, in the House of Commons.,

LA.W INTU,LIGENCL.;

COURT OF tiTANcERY, JucYJ.IL

DR. JAMES': powDEns.

FRANCIS NF,WBSRY U, GRORGR JAMES, GORDON

' JAMVS, AND .PINKsTCtN..TANIES.
Tlittplaintiff in 'this case is the. son of John
Newbery, who was the original proprietor and
sole vender of 'Dr. James!, fever powers, then+
matte and analeptic pills. Two ofalre defendants
are Dr. James's sons, and licorge.:JameaAs hi**
grandson. An injunction bad been 'lately ob-
tained by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants
from making or teaching to he made; tar vending
the said medicines to any other. person but to the
plaintiff; and to compel, a specific performance of
the agreement entered into between Dr. :lames,
the original inventor of them, and John Newhery,
who assisted him in procuring.o patent for them,
and'contracted with him to be their sole vender.—
To-day Mr. flew. moved to dissolve this i njanet ion,
tic Couteuded, that the contract entered into in 1746
between Dr. James and Mr. Newhery's father, by
which• the latter agreed to sell the powders invent-
ed by the former fur 21 years; and the contract of
17n5, by which they Mutually engaged,-the former
for himself, and his administratOrs, and assigns, to
snake the medicines in.question, and to sell them
exclusively• to the latter at nixed price, 'namely,
th 4 box of pills, containing each two pills, and
the packet of powders, containing each two doses,
at Sul. ; and the latter engaged for himself, • his
administrators, and assigns, caustic the said medi,
eines at the stipulated price from the former, Was
of a nature' that it conic) not be performed, and
that the specific performance of it could not
therefore be enforced. The original parties conld
enter into such engagements for their own life-
times, hot could not covenant for their posterity,
No man could stipulate that his administrators
and arraigns could always be able to make pills or
powders, any more than he could engage for
making shoes or painting houses. An administrator
might, at the time when this contract was made.,
have been an infant ; and it could not he contend-
ed• that an infant could possess the requisite skill
for compounding medicines. Such a contract
was of the nature of those that imposed restraints
upon trade, and could not be enforced. The pa-
tent had been, procured in 1747, and as it was fqr
14 years, must have expired in 1761, when all the
world had a Eight to make those medicines. How
could Dr. James's heirs be campelled to do that
which all the world had a right to do ? Besides,
even though a specific performance of the original c
agreement :could be ompelled, law would, not
interfere to enforce performance, if the contract
had been departed from by,thcarWerse party ; and
the defendants alleged many variations introduced
by the plaintiff to their prejudice, such as the pity-
ing of stamps, advertisetneoksi:;&c.
Sir Mr. Le/sett, and Mr. TKOWelt
contended for the plaintiff, that the arguments at
present urged had been used when the itijimetion
was prayed,.and being then ineffectual, could not
note be matte the grounds of dissolving Nothing
had been stated that could vary the case, except
indeed the defendants by their answer were pre.
eluded from using the arguments that they at first
eMployed, and had much narrowed their grounds
of defence. There conid be no conception formed
of the arguments about, restraints on trade. How
was this a restraint on trade Did this contract
do more than was done in every covenant of part-
nership where the parties bound themselves to sell
or buy, or exercise tome•profession together, and
with no other party ? Thecounsel loathe defendants
bad dwelt much upon cue objectirin arising from the:
assumed absurdity.of binding in perpetuity, be.
cause the adMinistrator might happen to be' an
infant ; or other accidents might occur to render
specific performance impossible : btit accidents
might have happened in the 21 'years originally
mentioned, °rani& trappers In 3 years"; and the
bore contingency of such events as might defeat
an engagement, if they happened, should not
operate to render invalid a contract where they