Star.
London, England, 1822-11-05 00:00:00

,ICE-CHANCELLOR'S COVRDI NOY. 4.
PRACTICE OF THE COURT WITH AWIFECT TO IN-

JUNCTIONS.
COURT AND CO. V. MOUNT.IOY AND CO.
Mr. HAnT moved for an injunction against the
defendants under the following circumstances ; —His
Majesty is seized in right of the Crown, of the Forest
of Dean; in Gloucestershire, which contains much
iron and coal. Any perton who may be desirous of
working a mine in the forest must make application
to the King's Steward of the Forest, who, if he think
• fit, will grant the person so applying a track of land
for that purpose. In 1800 the plaintiffs obtained. the
grant of a piece of ground, and the defendants also
were put into possession or some contiguous land.
The respective boundaries of each track of land were
accurately defined. The plaintiffs lately had reason
to suspect that the defendants were encroaching upon
their boundaries; and on the 20th of August they
had the ground dialled, when it appeared that the
defendants had entered the boundaries of the plain-
tiffs, and were about to sink a pit there in order to
- discharge the water out of their own mine into that
of their neighbours, the effect of which would be the
complete destruction of the works. The injunction
he . applied for was to restrain the defendants from,
pfbeeecfing with the construction of the pit.
TIM VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that the Court
leas eheeys unwilling to issue an injunction on an ex-
piate application, unless the absolute necessity of the
rototeeding were evident. In the present case there
ctirtairtlY was priroirfacie evidence of necessity, but at
the same time, if the Learned Counsel had reason to
belieTe that no irreparable mischief would ensue
from the delay necessary in order to give the defend-
ants notice, -the Court would not grant the injunc-
tion, but let the case stand over. The Lord Chan-
cellor had lately established a custom which was un-
known to his predecessors—namely, that of directing
an injunction to stand over until the defendant re-
ceived notice of the motion. This practice he (the
Vice• Chancellor) was desirous of following, because,
be knew that frequently the desire to prevent irre-
parable mischief being- done to a plaintiff, caused
irreparable mischief to be inflicted upon a defendant.,
The Court, therefore, in future would expect, that on
in application for an injunction, it should appear
upon affidavit either that there had not-been time, or
that it would have been dangerous to give the defend.
ant notice, otherwise the motion would be refused.
Mr. HART said he was informed by his clients that
the most unfortunate aesults would ensue to them if
the injunction did not immediately issue.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that under these el:.
cutnstances, and because the rule laid down by the
Lord Chancellor was not generally known, he would
grant the injunction in the present instance.
PAPENY V. NICHOLS, BUTTERWORTH, AND OTHERS.
Mr. WILSON, on the part of.the plaintiff, applied
for an injunction to restrain the defendants, Messrs.
Nichols, Henry Butterworth, and Simpkin and Mar-
shall, from publishing and selling a work entitled a
44 Treatise on the Practice of the Court for the Relief
of Insolvent Debtors."
The facts of the case, as stated by the Learned
Gentleman, were as follows:—In the year 1821, the
drfendant, Mr. Nichols, an Attorney, wrote the work
in question, which the pillintiff, who is a bookseller
i t Temple.lane, undertook to publish at Iris own cost.
The number of the first edition was 500 ; all of which
(with the exception of 18 copies, which went to Mr.
Nichols) were to be sold for the benefit of the plain-
tiff. The copyright of the work was vested in Mr;
Nichols, but it was stipulated that he should not pub-
lish a second edition, until the whole of the first had
been sold. The plaintiff charged, that on the 31st
of October last Mr. Nichols, in violation of his agree-
ment, gave to Messrs. Butterworth, of Fleet-street,
and Simpkin and Marshall, who published it, a work,
the same in title, and essentially the same in substance,
as that published by the plaintiff, who had not yet
disposed of his first edition. The plaintiff supported
his statement by affidavits.—lnjunction granted.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 4.

,

.

I

The bankrupt, in UV, Ikea ti.liteettpop a
wine-merchant, aid-100i. iteetteditiftekrties
(111
three or four thogafitd.Po9446.Wpith. stock it his
cellar, although be' had not paid a ing- in the
pound under his rot-user aommissiori. e should call-,
witnesses who would proie that at •thettitne of these.
.supposed advances, Steer' was a man in rdistressed
circumstances ; he should tikob-prnve the execution of
a warrant of attorney for £550 to On Wija44, will%
acted as attorney for the plaiutif and the bankrup‘,
Mr. Williams and the plaintiff being alto`aßerwards
the securities of the bankrupt whilst he Was in the
custody of the. Marshal of the Kinei Smith prison.
From these circumstances of suspicretlite thought the
Jury would be warranted in giiing a verdict for his
client. He then called Mr. Jones, Marshal .of the •
King's bench prison, who proved the execution of the
swedes given for the bankrupt's obtaining the Rules.
Henry Mortimer, clerk to Mr. Williams' the At-
torney. swore that Holding was indebted to Williams
more than 1.300, but he was not certain that bills
had been delivered at the time the- warrant of attor-
ney was executed.
Some witnesses were then called who had dealings
in trade with the plaintiff, and they proved that the
plaintiff had nat been so regular in his payments.
during the years 18211 and 1821, as he was preceding
that period.
After the evidence for the defendant had been
gone through, Mr. Serjeant PELL replied.
The Loan Ciller JusTlce in summing up the Zvi-
dente observed, that unless the Jury disbelieved the
testimony of Thomas Holding and Lerigo, there ap-
peared a sufficient petitioning creditor's debt of cash
lent, independent of the bills. The Jury. would not
lightly impute fraud or perjury, and without the sup.
position of fraud or perjury throughout the transaction,
the plaintiff was certainly entitled to their verdict.
The Jury, after a short consideration, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.