Star.
London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

BEER AND WARD.

Mr.WETHERELL asked whether his Lordship would
go on with Beer and Ward to,morrow, as Lord Ports-
mouth's case would not come on? They had sent
tieir• case to the Attorney-General, but the other side
bad not sent theirs. • •
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Let it stand for the next
motion day—Thursday next. Would you be able to
go on to-morrow, or are the Gentlemen from the
Common Law Courts engaged in the Cambridge
—"Election ?
Mr. SUADwELL said it was he who was next to
address his Lordship.
Mr. HEALD hoped they would not be prevented
from going to Cambridge.
-The LORD CHANCELLOR—I should be sorry to
- prevent any Gentleman from going to Cambridge,
be it to vote for whom he will. It is better to take
it on Thursday.

V ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 25.
BRYSON V. WHITEFIELD.

Mr. HEALD, on the past of the plaintiff; stated that
this bill was filed for the specific. performance of an
agreement under the following circumstances :—The
plaintiff, who was a dyer residing in London, agreed
to sell his business to the defendant for a consider-
ation Of 45001. and also to communicate a certain
secret in the art of dying for a further consideration
of 1,0001. the plaintiff binding himself not to divulge
the secret, or make any use of it, or to carry on the
business of a dyer in London for twenty years. When
the deeds of the agreement came to be drawn up, the
defendant refused to sign them, unless the plaintiff
would submit to certain terms which were not ori-
ginally. stated. The plaintiff, under these circum-
stances, applied to the Court to compel the .specific
performance of the agreement.
Mr. BELL, for the defendant, said that his client
ought not in equity be compelled to perform the
agreement, because he had been deceived as to the
benefits which -he expected from it. The plaintiff
could not in law bind himself generally not to carry
on a trade, and if he' were bound only 'locally, he
might, from the peculiar nature of the business, esta-
blish himself at Norwich, or any other place, and com-
pete with the defendant as effectually in the London
market as if he lived in the mitropolis.
The VICE-CHANCELLOi was of opinion that a man
might bind himself generally from making use of a '
secret in business ; he therefore decreed that the agree-

-

went mast be carried intosiroot, and that it be re.
famed to the Master to dr-al/ it up..
- . COURT OFXINGS• Blow% RUMMER st '
Tat KING V. Tait VIOIMINIANGILLOR OF Tai lINIVIIIR-
*ITT ti commensal&
In a former Term, a Rule was obtained, calling
on the Vice-Chlincellor Of. .the University of Cam-
bridge to chew ‘ci'se why a aiaadai,nu should not
issue, commanding hiin to admit Mr. Jephson to be
Professor of Mineralogy in the University, to which
office it was alleged that he had beta duly elected
on the death of Dr. Clarke.
Mr. Serjeant Laos, Mr. LtmaDat.e, and Mr. At-
DERSON, sheaved cause against the Rule. Before en-
tering into the great question in dispute between the
two parties, relative to the mode in which the elect,
tion of .rtofessors should be conducted,, they took two
preliminary objections to the proceeding by manda-
mus. First, they contended that the Professorship
was not an office of such a description as would war-
rant the interference of the Court; and, secondly,
that even supposing the office, simply considered,
was the subject of such a proceeding, the proper
course of the applicant was, not to move the Court,
but to appeal to the King, as visitor of the Univer-
sity, in Council. On. the first point, they argued that
the Professorship of Mineralogy was no office conferring
permanent emolument, but merely a title of honour
incidentally productive of certain benefits. It was
not of ancient date, for it had no existence before it
was specially conferred on Dr. Clarke, nor was there
any salary which the Professor could claim. Dr.
Clarke; indeed, received 1001. a year from his Ma-
jesty, which was granted annually by Parliament,
but in which-no one could obtain a permanent inte-
rest, as it was liable at any time to be discontinued,
and, indeed, it was not improbable that some Mem-
ber of the House of Commons, bent on economy,
would insist on its being withheld. Its profits arose
from the voluntary attendance of members of the
University on the lectures of the Professor, for which
they gave him a compensation ; but it did not even-
confer the right of delivering lectitares,. for Dr. Clarke
had lectured before he received-the title; and other
persons, although doubtless liable to inhibition, had
at various times delivered lectures, without any title
or direct sanction. The office, then, was analogous
to that of a lecturer of a parish, where there was no
endowment or:fixed salary, but the party chosen by
the parishioners was compensated by their voluntary
subscriptions; in which case the Court had always'
refused.to interfere. - Here, then, there was no List-
ing interest—no profit essentially and permanently
resulting frdnl the office—nothing but a mere title
of honour, attended • with fluctuating advantages,
of which it *Might .be rendered destitute; and this,
upon the principle of all the cases, was not an
office to which the Court would compel admission.
In the next place, it w'as clear that there was a Court
competent to hear and determine the complaint, to
which no application had been made, in which no
reluctance to hear the case was suggested, and to
which, therefore, the- party seeking redress ought to
apply. It was a Court peculiarly fitted to determine
the case, because it could decide on the whole at
once; whereas the Court of King's Bench must hear
the mandamus and quo warranto separately, and if
they refused to interfere cnibehalf of one party, m 4 h:
again be called to decide on the validity of the elec-
tion of another. Former appeals bad been made,
when .differences arose in the University (rarely it
was admitted, for the occasions were rare), to the
King in Council, and there they had been heard and
decided. - It was the evident purpose of the Statutes
of •the Univeriliy, to keep-its members from submit-
ring disputes to-Courts of Law, by providing tribu-
nals where academical questions of right and of dis-
cipline might more properly.be decided. This case,
therefore, on the final determination of which tilt
mode of electiog the. five Professors would depend,
might not to have been brought before a Court of
Law by motion for mandffmas, while there was ano-
ther Court peculiarly adapted to the .discussion, and
willing to hear it. Besides; it did net. appear that
Mr. Jephson himself had promoted the application,
for he had made no affidavit ; and the case was
brought before the Cuurt by a.stranger. .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and air. TOMAL re-
plied, that it was true Mr. Jephson, who was now at
Cambridge, had rnade no affidavit; but it was stated
that he was elected—that- he had presented himself
to the Vice-Chancellor for admission, and waseefused,
and that he had adopted every legal means of obtain.
ing admission in vain.
The Cower intimated, that they could not enter-
tain any tnotion for a mandamus to admit to an office,
unless the party on whose behalf the application was
made swore that he had been desirous- of being ad.'
mitted to the office, that. he was still desirous cf ad-'
mission, and that, if admitted, he would execute its
duties. Without such an affidavit, it would be wasting
the time of the Court to proceed further.
The So LICITOR-GE N E RAL expressed his hope, that,
in a case *ftif so great importance, he should not be
precluded by the omission, but allowed an opportn-
tunny of obtaining the affidavit of Mr. Jephson, which
he could obtain on Wednesday.
Mr. Serjeant LENS expressed his readiness to con-
sent that the case should stand over, to allow of the
production of Mr. Jephson's affidavit.
The Sotactroft-Gtsmam. wished it to be under-
stood, that he did not undertake that such an affida-
vit would be made by Mr. Jephson.
The case was then postponed till Wednesday. •