Star.
London, England, 1809-08-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF .CHANCERY.

SELWYN AND OTHERS V. IRIDOMAN AND OTHERS.
An erroneous report having appeared respecting
the atiove cause, we give the following as a correct
statement of the judgment :--
The LORD CHANCELLOR began by observing that
the proceedings were perfectly 'regular and correct,
and that, in applying to this Court, the plaintiff had
followed a proper course: and his Lordship concluded
nearly as follows, There certainly is sufficient
evidence to go before a Jury ; I may publish a pork
as Lord Eldon's Work, but I cannot in so doing take
parts of Viners, Bacon, or any other Abridgment
(supposing the copyright therein to continue), and
by consolidating those works with mine, print them
as my own. It I were so to do, I certainly should
be guilty of a piracy. Part of Mr. Bridgman's work
is certainly taken from Mr. Selwyn's ; I, therefore,
see no reason to induce me to dissolve the injunction
I had before issued for restraining the sale of the defen-
dant's work. Mr. Selwyn has certainly rendered an
important service to the profession in his publication;
it is a work of very great merit, as are some of the
productions, of the defendant ; with a /AM, there-
fore, to de justice to both' parties, the sale of the
work may be permitted to continue, if the defendant
will go before the Master, and give security to the'
plaintiff for a faithful account of the produce arising
from the sale of the work, and to pay such further
sum as this Court may think a compensation for the
injury the plaintiffs may sustain by such publication;
the plaintiffs in the mean time must 'bring their ac-
tion, to which the defendant should plead forthwith,
so as to have the trial next Term, and the manu-
script of the defendant must be forthwith deposited
with the Clerk in Court, for the inspection of the
plaintiffs."

SURREY' ASSIZES.

CROYDON, AUGUST 11.

CRAVEVER V. ANigialiDlaf.•-•CIUM. COY.

Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD said, the plaintiff was a
farmer, resident in the neighbourhood of this town,
and was a man estimated to be peculiarly skilful in
his profession, which indeed was the primary cause
of his misfortune. The defendant was a young gentle-
man of considerable West-India property, who wished
to become. acquainted with the agriculture of Eng-
land, and as the plaintiff was esteemed a skilful agri-
culturist, he was placed by his trends in the house of
the Plaintiff : he had not long been there before he
seduced :he affections of the plaintiff's wife; but, as it
does net uncommonly happen, an iniured husband is
the Lest person to be informed of the wrong that is
done him. It was so with the plaintiff: he had not
the most remote suspicion that he was injured in the
terderest point, until he himself one day accidentally
discovered his wife And the defendant in the act of cri-
minal intercourse ; and then, as lie had no witness
near him, ht• c: 91d only do that which he did, namely,
dismiss both his f:iiltless wife and her paramour from
his house. He tld. -nod the subsequent conduct of
the plain titi. was to be ;11-.: • ! igainst him,but when that
conduct came to be explained, it would add to bis
honour, in the mind of every feeling man. k seemed
the unhappy and guilty woman, soon after her detec-
tion, f: om remorse of conscience, he hoped, was fixed
to .t bcd of sickness, from which she was never more
expected to rice, and on that occasion she solicited an
interview w;th her husband—and at such a moment
who would have refused even a guilty wife that small
consolation in the supposed hour of death ? Yet he
understood, that that act was this day to be urged as
a reason for diminishing the damages which, by the
peseta action, he sought to recover. He should
prove the case, and he was sure the Jury would give
a verdict which would answer the demands of justice.
A Mrs. Johnson and a Mr. Hitchin proved, that
the plaintiff and his wife lived together in great ap-
parent affection and harmony.
Anne Bell, servant to the plaintiff, said, she remem-
bered the defendant coming to live with the plaintiff
in 1807. One day in the month of February, she
saw her mistress and the defendant in a very unequi-
scoul situation. She did not speak, but immediately
retired ; on two other occasions, she also saw them
in like situation;, but she never said a word to her
master, or any one else, until after she quitted the fa-
mily. She then told it to several persons, when shel
hoard that the plain of had one day himself de-,
tected his wife. She did not tell, she said, because'
she did not like to disturb the peace of the family.—
The Noble and Learned Judge observed to her, that
her morality did net seem to be of the soundest sort.
The Defendant, she said, appeared about 21 or 22,
and her mistress, she supposed, was near 40.
Wm. Hopkins deposed, that he met the Defendant
about twelve months ago in Tooley-street, when he
told the witness it was a lucky thing for the Plaintiff,
as he would get rid of a d—d bad- wite.—The Jury
found a verdict for the Plaintiff—Damages £490.