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

were not alit4geti to have occnrted. Contracts,
were entered into for'99 years. or for long periods,
as in the partnership of the Carron iron-works iu
Scotland, and nobody thought that such contracts
were invalid. But if a contract extended its ob-
ligations beyond the usual _period of human
life, it might devolve upon representatives .for
fulfilment, and thus, without including a clause
of perpetuity, would have to: encOnnter all the
objections raised against this one by the learned
connsel, and be exposed to the absurd conse-
niiences of an imaginary case. Cases were diffi-
cult to be found on which to sustain the present
injunction, but some, did exist ; and in a case of
a contract between the- editor of a journal, a
printer, and bookseller, an injunction was now
in force. This 'editor might have turned mad ins—
mediately after concluding the contract ; and rea-
soning on this contingency, according to the prin-
ciples of the adverse party, no specific perfor-
mance of his agreement could have been corn,
pelled even while he was able and capable of per-
forming it. As to the objections arising from the
variation in the contract by the plaintiff, they
might be afterwards considered ; but, in the mean
time, he should have the benefit of that contract
till their validity was examined.
The Loan CHANCELLOR asked if the powders
sold by the plaintiff under the name of James's
I',,woler4' were the same as those about which the
contract was made in 1755 ? If they were not, a
specific performance of an engagerient could not
be 'enforced which assumed thiit they, were the
same ; and if they were the SRMO those_rnen,
tioned in 1755, their composition must tally with
the specification of the patent. If any change
had subsequently been made by Dr. James, the
powders were nut those referred to in the con-
tract, ,and the injunction could not be sustained.
He threW out this merely as a hint to the parties.
The questiOn whether the pOwders were'the-same
or not must be tried in open Court, if the present
litigation were persevered in ; and he submitted
to the serious consideration bath of the plaintiffs
andffetentlants, what must 'be the effect of such
a trial upon -their interests, if there really was
any secret, Which in this way must be disclosed.
He spoke thus frouva spirit of regard td both
parties, because he really believed that the New-
bery.and the James family; by their joint exer-
tions—the former in furnishing the capital, .and
the latter the invention required in preparing
these medicines-749d been benefactors to live
Public. lie would heat the case further .to,
morrow. . .

COURT" O,F KIN6'S BBNCI-1, Jtits f 9.1

APVLETON V. LORD HRAYBROOKR.

This *AR an actiOn against the defendaot,
as Provost-Marshal of the Supreme Court of,Jus-
tice in the Island of Jamaica, to recover 4691. be-
ing the amount of a- judgiacnts obtained by the
plaintiff in that• Court. In order to malio.crut3lie
nlantiff's case,, a copy of the judgment of the
Court of Jamaica, signed by the Judge and sealed.
with the seal of the- island, and attested by a no-
tary public, was given In evidence.
Mr. GASELIM, on the part of the defendant,
submitted that the copy of the judgment ought to
have been sealed with the seal of the Court, and
not of the Island in which. the judgment was re-
covered ;
.and .that evidence ought to have been
given of the Judge's hand-writing 3 but
Lord ELLesIIOiiOUGH overruled the objection,
and the plaintiff had a verdict, with liberty, how-
ever, to the defentlant to move. •