Star.
London, England, 1824-12-18 00:00:00

Church, there was a sign over the door, "-Surgeon'
Bentley."
On Koss-examination, the witness said he was 41•
years of age. He was an operator on the feet by pro-
fession, and had been so for nine years. The defendant
was about 40 years of age. The witness was educated •
at Derby, under a persOn named Wood, a kind If den.
tist—(A laugh)—and also an operator on the feet. lie
Sias nearly a year with Mr. Wood, but practice Irad
made him perfect. Before that he uas a frame-work-
knitter at Derby. 'His brother'was apprenticed to Mr.
Bickerton, at Wbitchurch. He could not say how i•ld
the defendant was then, or when he was with Dr. Fow-
ler: he could give no particular dates. The defendant
left Strutt's in 1810 or 1811. He went to Dr. Fowlea's
before he went to Strutt's.

William Hadley said be supplied the defendant with drugs at
Derby, and thought there was a drscription of him over the dour.
Ile used to act as an apothecary for about three years.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Bentley sent for drugs, and sent the mo-
ney ; sometimes 4d. or 2J. sometimes as much as .4i.
John Dolman said he knew Mr. Bentley at Derby, and that he
used to make up medicines. There was a sign on his door.
Mr—Sca &LETT shortly replied.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE left the Jurc to say whe-
ther, on this evidence, it was made out to their satisfac-

don that the defendant was practi•ing as an apothecary
in August, 1815; not merely whether he had occa
sionally mixed Medicine and administered pills, but
whether he acted as an apothecai y, keeping a shop, and
making up the preset iptions of physicians ?
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiffs on the last count) for a single penalty of 01.

COURT OF CHANCERY=-THIS D. 11:

MR. ABERNETHY V. THE LANCET.

On no occasion, not even excepting the car, of Mr.
Fletcher and Miss Dick, do we remember to have seen
the Court of Chancery more crowded than on the pre.
sent occasion. Some time before his Lordship entered
the Court every seat was occupied, and Counsel had the
same difficulty of obtaining ingress and egress to their
respective seats, as on the cccasiou of the heating of the
Injunction against the Rev. Gentleman above alluded
to. On this occasion, the Lord Chancellor was so op.

pressed by the heat, that his Lordship directed the
windows to he opened for the admission of air.
The SOLICITOR-.GENERAL having noticed the pre-
viosrs application, and the order for the motion to stand
over for the purpose of allowing time for the defendants
to put in an affidavit, now moved the Court for an in-
junction to restrain the Editors, Printer, and Publishers,
from publishing in a certain work called the " Lancetr
the Lectures of Mr. Abernethy, the plaintiff. The
Learned Solicitor fist called his Lord'ship's atten-

tion to the grounds on which the • motion was
ordered to stand over, and then commented on
the affidavit filed, which he described to be a
mere compilation of blank paper. "It was," lie
said, " an affidavit full of vacuity, and replete with no-
thing." If be could give a name to anything that would
convey the meaning of " more than nothing," he should
be prone to use it on the present occasion, for never
could such an expression be better used than now.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.-Mr. Solicitor, I should
really like to see such a thing!
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL proceeded. He would put
it •on the ground of protection to literary property, and
on this strong principle he wovld rest his motion. Here
was a Gentleman, admitted to possess great ability, and
was it to be said, that even in the very teeth of his own
express denial to any publication, any set of Gentlemen
were to be at liberty to publish his lectures, and these
verbatim, even to the very letter? As well might it be
said, that the sermons delivered by our most revered
and reverend Divines,were public property, and might,
the next morning after their delivery,-be published by
any person who had the ability to take them down.—
As well might it be said, that the lectures at the Uni-
versities, were equally the property of any Gentleman
who might attend and think fit to publish them for his
own emolument. Without troubling his Lordship far-
ther, he would rest on this principle of right of property;
and as the affidavit put in, contained nothing that could
in the least alter the law or equity of the case, he should
sit down, confident that his Lordship would restrain the
defendants (to whom he would not for a moment ascribe
anything appertaining to ungentlemanly conduct) from
continuing the publication of the work complained of.
Mr. Rose followed on the same side, and in the
course of his argument, compared the defendants to a
" fowler," who, not content with taking the young
birds, captured the old one also.
Mr. Hones, for the defendants, argued at very consi-
derable length against the Injunction. His Learned
Friends had dwelt much on the affidavit that had been
put inthey had described it as a mere nothing ; and
yet they had felt it to possess so much more than
nothingness, so much more real and convincing proofs
why this Injunction should not be granted, that the
principal part of their arguments was devoted to
it alone. He certainly must deny that it was
an affidavit made up merely to secure another week's
publication of the work. His clients were Gentlemen
of too high honour to lend themselves to such a trans-
action. His Learned Friends had relied on their argu-
ment as to the right of property ;—and he, with as
full confidence, also relied on his argument. What!
was it to be said that in a case like the present, a case
which was admitted on all sides to be one of the greatest
public importance ;—a case in which so much ability,
so much knowledge of surgery, was displayed by
the Learned Gentleman who appeared as plaintiff
in the case ;—was it to be decided on a mere principle
set up? How was the argument on the other side
maintained ? Why, they contended, in effect, that
the public was to be deprived of those beneficial
consequences arising from the promulgation of the
Learned Gentleman's science. Had he in his bill stated
that he gave his Lectures from written papers ?—No.
Had he in his affidavit stated it was front written papers,
on which he claimed a copy-, ight, that he gave his Lec-
tures? No.—His Learned Friends, aware of the im-
portance of this point, had confined-themselves to
stating that the Lectures were .given as written pa-
pers. Had' the learned plaintiff even a:tempted to
swear that he had even reduced his Lectures to
manuscript for the purpose of publishing them ?
No—and was it to be said that the public at large were
to be kept from such high and important knowledge
without any reason? The lectures were given publicly,
and he contended that there .was n- thing deroga-
tory in the publication. Had Mr. Abernethy yen-
lured to swear that he had the manuscript by him
and meant to publish it, the case a ould have been dif-
ferent ; but under all the circumstances of the case, he
submitted that no lust reason had been assigned for his
Lordship's interference. • -
Mr. SHADWELL f Mowed on the same side, and in
the course of his argument observed, that as well migl t

• -.WO

oNiiimmtiM!em.l

2r,

• -•7l=ratzt=tatill