The Sun.
London, England, 1829-03-28 00:00:00

LAW, INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
TIIELLUSON V. WOODFORD.
~ssin,LoßrosulP gave judgment this morning in
this Case, which was argued some time since. The
question raised upon the petition was, whether,
under the will of Mr. The Anson the privilege which
hid been granted to the trustees named in tint will,
Wilk! intended to extend to future trustees. His Lord-
had,read the will very carefully for the purpose of
determining the point. The expression used in the
'4ll Wan " the said trustees." If those words were
considered sufficient to embrace future trustees,
it. Wm material to consider what the apparent inten-
tion
of the testator was. Three trustees had been
csiginally appointed, and a power given, in the
event of the death of any of them, or their thinking
PtOper no longer to act, to place others in their
room. Such being the case, it would be a singular
thin;; to argue that the old trustees were entitled
to reside in the mansion-house at Itroadsworth,
nut the new trustees were not to have the benefit of
Illat Privilege. It wa, clear to his Lordship's mind
tilTkt the testator intended the trustees to reside in
is house, for the purpose of more carefully super-
intending the property. Under such circumstances,
if
tnie question had come before the Court now for
e first time, his Lordship would have felt
himself bound to say, all the trustees that
were or might be appointed, were entitled
the privilege intended by the will.—
tint the question had been before the Court
upon three distinct occa,ions—in 1810, 1812,
lind 1820—upon all of which the Court had acted
upon that principle. At the same time, his Lord-
ship must say that, looking at the will and the pro-
visions contained in it, it could not but be apparent
to every one that the establishment as it was now
carried on was not of such a nature as the testator
114'114:led. Whit, therefore, the Court would do
!sal to declare that the present and future
ijustees were entitled to reside in the mansion-
kinde, establishment it to the Master to determine what
of should be kept up for ►the pur-
Pcsul uf fulfilling the intentions of The testator.

• lIODGSON v. MURRAY.
Mr. HORNE moved for the dissolution of the in-
junction granted by his Honour the Vice-Chan-
cellor in this case, restraining Mr. Murray from
Prooeeding with an action at law to recover the
value of .a note for 8,0001. It appeared from the
shtliteinents of the Learned Counsel, that a contract
id been entered into with the plaintiff by Mr.
OWland Stephenson for the sale of one of his
Tate, near Epsom. The bill in question, drawn at
eight months, was given by the plaintiff in payment.
The, contract contained a clause that either party
14,44,t rescind it upon. certain conditions. It
appeared' that it was afterwards rescinded;
~,but 'the 'plaintiff permitted his bill for the
°,OOOl. to remain in the bands of Mr. Rowland
Stephenson, in order that he might use it for his
own benefit. Stephenson discounted the bill at the
bank of
,which he was a partner. Upon its becoming
due be paid it, and took it out of the firm. The
defendant, Mr. Murray, had originally banked i
N at
sterling and Co.'s, but upon that house being n-
ved in difficulties, he removed his account
I: the bank of Remington, Stephenson, and Co.
*lone), and Exchequer Bills to the amount of upwards
°f 70004 were placed by him in their hands, with in-
Itpletions to place it out to the best advantage.
i Pon his inquiring of Mr. Stephenson the manner
_ll.which it was placed out, the 80004 note, then
rer due, was produced, and Stephenson stated that
"bad:lent the money to the plaintiff, in order to
"able him to proceed with his election for Barn-
softite upcn its security. After the bankruptcy
--e„'e'nlington and Co. Mr. Murray brought his
action against Mr. Hodgson for the recovery of
it-I,"ralue of the bill, contending that lie was
4'1'91.4. fide. holder of it for a valuable consi-
cation
-and. though it was over due at the time of
bit r .1
oceiving it, yet that he was entitled to recover
Metb,lnt- as against Mr. Hodgson. Mr. Hodgson
ih-g Ina bill in this Court for the purpose of obtain-
a
iteZ. An Injunction to restrain the proceedings in that
1011,which w nted b his Honour, the Vice-
•-
r,hantellor.: as
/3ra
tkhlr. Hem?, in-applying for its dissolution,contended
t".4t Termisilowhaying been given by the plaintiff to
, Rowland Stephenson to make use of the bill,
ne,nss liable to. the holder for its payment in a
Court of law, where, the Learned Counsel sub-
toitted, the question could only properly be tried.
Mr. SWANN followed on the same side, who was
addressing the Court when we left.

VICF,_cHANCELLOR'S COURT.
INJENCTION.--SWEET AND OTHERS V. ARCHBOLD

AND ANOTHER.
Mr. SUGDEN moved for a special injunction to
restrain Mr. Archbold (the barrister) from publish-
/,1111 a vrork entitled " Practice of the Court of
Compton Pleas."
Mr. PEPIN trusted his Honour would postpone
20ring this motion for the present. Mr. Archbold
'me on the northern circuit; but a letter had been
teeived froM him, stating that he had a satisfactory
trlswer to the_case.
SUGDEN—I will show a gross piracy, there-
ke there can be no answer.
Mr. PEPYS complained that there had been no no-
tice given of making the motion.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Suppose, Mr. Sugdea,
/eu let the case stand over for a week, upon the
defendant's undertaking to keep an account.
Mr. SUDDENL—I mast press the application,—
aotice had been given on the 16th inst.
0114 VICE-CHANCELLOR—That materially alters
e ease. I will hear it now.
iw
SUGDEN then stated that the plaintiffs, who
4iire booksellers in Chancery-lane, purchased of the
tiefiTnOant the copyright of his work, entitled.—
4tetice of the Court of King's Bench," for
41
‘ lUnt of 6501. • The book met with very great
Yagement, and they subsequently entered
neour°
another contract with him for a work to be en-
titled, " Practice of the Court of Common Pleas."
sis latter agreement, however, the defendant (after
tiPPlYing 'five pages of copy) violated, and the
tlitiptiffs brought an action against him for a breach
,:contract, and received damages, for which he gave
,cognovit, which had since been paid. Shortly
terwards 'Mr. terming, a bookseller in Fleet-street,
brought out a work, entitled " Practice of the
IZourt of Common Pleas," edited by Arch-
Id, Esq,, which turned out to be a great pla-
rilim of the plaintiffs' book. The Learned Counsel
then read several, passages in the different publi-
%lions which were word for word the same; there
Were -several Affidavits stating that whole pages,
without the alteration of a single letter, were the
x_P4tale • that a great part of the work published by
44. &lining seas set up from printed. copy, and
that the defendants did not become acquainted with
these facts but a few days previous to their giving
40tiee Of this application.
WittunT was on the same side; but
"'he VICE-CHANCELLOR, after looking at the
different works, said he would not trouble him, and
asked Mr. Pepys what answer he could give ?
oMr. PEPYS said, if time had been allowed to Mr.
rllbold; he.could give a satisfactory answer, and
Fince the Court that the works were as much us
they
. could be, • considering the similarity of the
Practice in the Law Courts, different. Mr. A. was at
113,resent at Lancaster, and not having access to his
tPers (they being in London), he could not make
be necessary affidavits; he therefore trusted. his
t‘"_.onour would not for a short time grant the injunc-
-67- It was a most singular fact that the. plain-
liehad, on two former occasions, obtained nnutic-
,.' 44. against the defendant, at the time he was on
-tt:!eircuit, which he afterwards got discharged with
w .:t5 ; and he hid little doubt but that would be the
the.in the present instance if his Honour granted
motion.
VICE-CHANCELLOR had no doubt he ought
to
le ?Ant the injunction ; the defendant would have
at liberty, in certain cases, to make an abridg-
-11/ '4l-e'lt of, his former work, but it never could be sup-
Postd, after selling the copyright, that he had a

/0
ro.?
►v