The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAV

VICE-CH A NCE LL OR'S COURT.
In consequence of the absence of Counsel and abateratilt*
his Honour struck several causes out of the papers,
LONCMAN AND OTHERS V. TYSON. , to(
The motion in this case (which was for the comttut`",op
a learned author) having b en appointed for this mer„;00
the Court was crowd, d with authors and publishers. ba
the Vice-Chancellor called upon Mr. Horne to make eie
motion, the Learned Counsel informed the Court that
brief of his friend the Solicitor-General was at that 0°1.7,0
in transitu, must therefore request that thiscan

stand over for a short period. -
WATEIt-GUN.—DE BFRRINGER V. HAMMER' .40
The bill in this case was filed by Charles Randall Dl. f
de Barringer, of Kentish Town, fhe noted invent°,llate
the water-gun, against his partner, a gentleman 0%,,,
name of Hammer, for the purpose of having the op,
went entered into between them specifically per Os
and the partnership dissolved. Some time mace ;or
plaintiff, being partial to scientific pursuits, sought to ob
nect himself, through the medium of an advertisement'°tip,
a person of the same turn of mind. The defendant was 617 to
timate acquaintance of the plaintiff, and upon his 0pp441,01,
him to permit persons answering his advertisement
doss him at his house, the defendant expressed his she
Ihignrss to step into the place of the person sought by or,
advertisement. The defendant agreed to become the Pip
chaser of a moiety of the plaintiff's invention,
callecind
water-proof gun constructed in three ways, value 20 yd
for 500 guineas. He was to pay down 300 guineas: 'oe
the rest at a future period. Quarrels arose between 01
parties ; the plaintiff alleged the defendant had 640°61
him in the carrying on of his business, and the bill Pll4
an injunction to restrain him from doing so.
0.6
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed these parties ~
partners, and there appeared no means of reconciliati°o
Their only stock in trade was a gun that would shoot or
man under water.—(A laugh.)—He could see no °no,
termination of this cause than a dissolution of the psi'
ship, and a sale of the subject of it.
f-s the

Mr. HORNE eonira hoped to be able to dismiss g.e.
with costs. The defendant, in his answer, denied Old
fusal on his part to perform the agreement, or spy ate
to obstruct the plaintiff in his business. it
Mr. PARKER. opened the answer of the defendant,
the conclusion of which del
Mr. HORNE proceeded to make his motion in the c-

LONGMAN AND OTHERS V. TTSON.
This (the Learned Counsel stated) was a motion %o
part of the plaintiff for the committal of the defenott
the Rev. Edwin Coleman Tyson and 111 r. „or
Towler Dow. The case lay in a narrow 104
pass, though very important. An injunctiott.
been obtained, restraining the defendant front
ing a work of very considerable merit, which hau,,e,'
greatly instrumental in teaching us our own langnell
he alluded to Murray's English Grammar, a work oloorl:
known that it needed no comment from him. Tij79so
had been published by a Mr. Lindley Murray, inwthedi'
and had gone through no less than 43 editiwns; the. %Obi
tion with great improvements was published in 1801,700
deeds of assignment, the copy-right vested in the 1? sg9.
plaintiff, whose interest did not terminate till August 1 tbs
The injunction had been obtained in March, and if hi,
Learned Counsel, could succeed in shelving there has etr
clear breaches of the injunction, he subMitted he rels'oli,
titled to the prayer of his motion. He was
,sorry tgicite
serve the value of the work was such as not only to
the cupidity of booksellers, but also appeared to 11. d.
TtrehteneLlyeairnnveidtincgout(ni
soetlhwerass upirtoocefieldleda
ingfwr
hdeinffewreen
lte;tsffr
o'clock. •

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
POE, ON DEMISE OF TURNBULL V. SI'ISYNIP.P.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved in this cage for
to show cause why the nonsuit should not be o'o Llogi
and a new ti ial had. The case was tried at York, "`
Mr. Justice Bailey. Their Lordships would doubt
sm prised when he informed them, that the grog, co
which he moved was the falsity of the evidence giveljoill
the trial. The action was to try the validity oci
which was considerably in the favour of the plaintiT ttli°
(Sir J. Scarlett) had a number ofaffidavits to show t"e6dor
witnesses since the trial had given an account of the ?It
action quite contradictory to their evidence on the
and quite confirmatory of the ease be received on tbe
by his instructions.
_ _

Lord TENTERDEN,-.—Take a rule to shew cause•

NUKES V. WIGRAM.
0,1
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that this was - 0 rlr
of slander, in which the plaintiff was nonsuited, 8%10!
moved for a new trial on the ground of the abeence;be
most material witness who had heard the slandels.
was, that the plaintiff was an uncertificated banj
The affidavits being deficient, the rule was ref
od
SEWART V. TOWELL. ;iji
Mr. BROUGHAM moved in this case for a ne- to-_,ce; .
the ground that the former verdict was against. ed
The action was on a policy of insurance on the PS, se•-4
for a voyage to Sierra Leone and other ports OP 17,0 ;P,.
of Africa, and back to the port of dischargeitbit'L,
country. The vessel was lost on the voyage, noisil
fondant in the action contended that she was neV,-;
when she put to sea from the last port. The Ju;p f 0
for the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel noW n
a lab
new trial on the above-mentioned ground, and °"-- of
point reserved by his Lordship. noon s
The Court were now of opinion that thethe}
e
seaworthiness was a question for the Jury, which der $
decided. With regard to the other quest"° un veer
Navigation Act, the Court. would take a short time
cider.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
TRIMMER V. LORD UNTINGTOWER• /Ole
H
f
Mr. CLARKE moved or a rule to show causeol) srl
verdict in this case should not he set aside. It I,afore
act;on of libel, tried at the last Assizes for Leicester, r tbe,
the Chief Baron, when a verdict was returned Od'
plaintiff with 2,0001. damages, the whole amouoed the
in the declaration. The ground on which he run v,
that sufficient evidence of the noble defendant beiellio°
author of the letter in which the libel was f"unabir Vif
not been adduced. It would also be necessarY
(Mr. Clarke) to detaila few of the facts. The P
was Vicar of Buckminst, r, where he also kci thil
demy. The defendant was lord of the manor ot tbli"tif
rish, and many unfortunate disputes arose betweeseoter
which led to a letter being sent to the Par plio
one of the plaintiff 's pupils, in which the,
stigmatized Mr. Trimmer as a person totabYry fro
to superintend the education of youth. The ~;t, froe
sumed that this letter was written by the deferito",:to
the fact of his shortly before sending a messenge',,,,e
plaintiff's house, and telling him " firsfitl6
not fire any more pistols or he (Lord H.) sOuorer
them all from the palish." Now Lord HuntingtUvd if to
a very nervous man, and the provocation he Nee' 040
the plaintiff's pupils was excessive. Wheil bed it, 5,0 e
go out in the carriage they world assemble Nu° OUI- of
annoy him in every way by hissing and hooting. ones o,y
occasion they opened the carriage-door, and 5,e to eon
them called out, " Oh, so you have sent a ineies:`ol°esl'°
the boys shall not shoot. Why, what illvi°o air:re
you old scoundrel."—(Laughter.)--'a 06
proved, that the plaintiff had frequently alus,;ocis
would be no peace in the parish, while an old foe'
the defendant was in it." Vrel
Mr. Baron GARROW-This was after greftlo_, 113—
tion, Mr. Clarke. You remember the polo 1,011"%,s111'
Huntingtower erected close to the plaintiff '0 -
the horribly disgusting scenes that were every