Star.
London, England, 1824-12-09 00:00:00

LAW REPORT,

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER Ei
RtDtBARN V. ATTWOOD.-JUDONENT.
The subject here was mines and iron-works„ which
the plaintiff held of the defendant, under powers of
re-entry which had been exerted against him (the
plaintiff), while the i ight of bringing actions at law
was also secured to the defendant by the contract. The
Vice-Chancellor bad affirmed the breach of covenant,
_and had given the costs of all the proceedings to the
defendant.
The Loan CHANCELLOR now confirmed the decree of
the Vice-Chancellor upon the breach of covenant ; but
his Lordship thought that the decree went to a length
which the practice of the Coto would not justify in
giving the costs of all the other proceedings. The pe-
tition and appeal prayed in the second instance.to re-
strain the defendants from proceeding with their action
at law ; and though there was no proof that they had
commenced any such action, his Lordship thought that
his older must have the effect of restraining them at
least till the Master shall have reported the state of
the accounts.

IN RE ELEPHANT AND CASTLE CHARITY.
An original grant of 51. a-year copyhold lands, made
by the Dean andbehapter of Canterbury to the oversee's
of Newington Parish, in trust, has reached at length
the value-of 6001. a year. The Master of the Rolls had
directed the Master to report a plan for an improved
distribution of the funds. Some difficulty arose upon
the words of an Act of Parliament which vested this
truss in certain parish officers " for the time being."
The LORD CHANCELLOR had promised judgment, but
felt himself oppressed by doubts : first, as to..whetber
the official character of the parish officers with whom
the trust was to vest had not changed so greatly as to
be totally at variance wills the nature of the trust ; and
next, if the bill could, with a proper regard to the Act
of Parliament, be entertained at all? So that the case
must necessarily stand over.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, DECEMBER a.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CORPORATION OF WINCHESTER.
Mr. SOLICITOR.GENERAL stated to the Court, that
the present cause was brought before his Honour for
further directions on the Master's Report. It appeared,
in the progress of the cause, that for a number of years
the Corporation of Winchester had for many years been
Int possession of the proceeds of divers estates, which
they appropriated according to their own discretion.—
But certain persons interested in the affairs of Winches-
ter, conceiving that these funds so devoted by the Cor-
poration, ought to be appropriated to charitable pur-
poses, set an inquiry on foot as to the origin and ori-
ginal destination of the funds. The result of this in-
quiry was the commencement of two suits in Chancery.'
The first was brought forward in the shape of an in-
formation of the Attorney-General, on the relation of
an individual, seeking a discover y from the Corporation.
of V 1 inchester, as torall funds received by them, ip trust,'
for the support and maintenance of the Hospital of Sc.
John the Baptist, derived under the will of a person of
the name of Ralph Lamb.
The second information also proceeded on the rela-
tion of an individual, and prayed a general discovery
of all funds at the disposal of the Corporation. These
two suits were subsequently incorporated.
• The answer given by the Corporation was, that there
had been formerly in existence an Hospital, called St.
John's Hospital, but that, since the reign oUienry VIII.
it ceased to have existence; ant that they had only ap-
propriated the funds as their predecessot Arad done for
time immemorial.
The further hearing of this cause was postponed till
Friday, to-morrow being Seal-day.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 8.
WESTUACOTT V. THWAITES AND OTHERS.
This was an action-brought by Charles Westmacott
against Mr. Thwaites and others, proprietors of the
Morning Herald Newspaper, to recover damages for a
libel. The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged that be.
tore the publication of the libel, he had printed a cata-
logue of pictures displayed at the annual exhibition of
the Royal Academy, and having caused the same to be
sold without the walls of the Academy, the defendants,
intending to injure him, by preventing the sale? pub-
lished the libel of which he complained.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case, and in the course of his
address to the Jury observed that the plaintiff, in the
catalogue which the defendants so much abused, had
shewn the greatest respect for works of merit. The
pictures of Sir T. Lawrence, for instance, had been
treated with all the delicacy and attention due to that
great master. The article (in substance) warned the
public against purchasing any catalogues on sale outside
the walls of the Royal Academy. It stated that they
were incorrect—that the different notes were composed
of bad grammar, and scarcelyintelligible. It also stated
that the object of the writer was to extort money from
young artists.
After some witnesses were called to prove the plain-
tiff's case,
Mr. SCARLETT addressed the Jury for the defendants,
who he insisted had not published a libel on the author
of the catalogue, but fair criticism upon a book, badly
written, the grammatical errors of which he pointed out.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in his charge to the Jury,
said, the plaintiff had adopted an improper mode of
selling his catalogue, because the situation where it was
sold induced the persons who visited the Academy to
consider it a genuine catalogue. With respect to the
libel, everyman had aright to exercise legitimate criti-
cism, but it was not competent for any person, under
pretence 6f criticising a recent publication, to cast re-
flection on the characters of others. Unless immorality
could be traced in the work, the book was the subject
of criticism, and not the writer. If the publisation.of
which the plaintiff complainedhad been confined to the
bad grammar and composition, it would have been dif-
ficult to say it was a libel ; but it went furthet, and
charged the plaintiff with intent to extort money from
artists. There was no proof of that ;on the contrary,
the writer appeared indulgent to young artists. There
was nothing in the publication which could justify the
words which conveyed that charge, and the Jury must
therefore find a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages ls.
BRODIE V. BULLET.
This action was to recover I:315 as money had and
received. Mrs. Brodie, the plaintiff, had paid the mo-
ney as an apprentice fee with her son to the defendant;
a wine-merchant and broker. It was csintended'that the
defendant did so little business in the character in which
he took the apprentice, that the money was recoverable
on the ground of fraud. His Lordship said there was
no pretence for fraud. The deed of contract was found
not to have been stamped in terms of the Bth Anne.