Star.
London, England, 1821-11-06 00:00:00

that letter, to come into a Court of Equity. The de-'eminent coal-Merchants, accredited two persons or
fendaat might contend, either, that she never did give the name of Prendergast, who kept a coal-slied near
the work to Mr. Murray, or that if she did, a legal as- the New-road, upon the security if
.a bond given by
signment was wanting, and this question might be de- Prendergast and Elmore, the defendants; the bond
tided at law ; but she does not choose to meet the case was given for £5OO, to ba, forfeit in ctr,e the balances
at law, but has brought it into equity. He considered it of the two I'rendergasts should not, at stated periods,
a breach of good ?aith towards Mr. Murray for the upon demand, be forthcoming. Pt endergasts (the
defendant to come into equity to ask relief. • ' dealers) failing in their payments, Messrs. Davy and .
Mr. HEALD (Counsel for Mrs. Rundell) begged par- • Sawyer found it necessary to sue upon the bond of
don for interrupting his Learned Fi iend, but he wished : Prendergast and Elmore ; and a plea (upon which
to state, that the plaintiff had first obtained an in- i the case now came before the Court) was then put
junction against Mrs. Rundell. He mentioned this I upon the record by the defendants, alleging that,
to shew that it was not his client who had brought upon a certain day (saute time prior to the bringing
the case into a Court of Equity, but the plaintiff. of the action) the plaintiff, had furnished their ac-
Mr. HORN believed that his Learned Friend was count against the two Prendergasts, and that they
mistaken. He (Mr. Horn) was now moving in a cause had, upon the security of a warFant of attorney from
in which Mrs. Rundell had obtained an injunction those persons, given time to them for the payment
which he wished to get dissolved. lle had heard that of the sum then due, which sum was £1,099, and no
the ground upon which Mrs. Rundell proceeded in more.—The question was, whether the plaintiffs, by
this affair was this, that although the copyright might giving, upon such warrant of attorney, time to the
in the first instance have been given to Mr. Murray, principals, had or had not discharged the sureties
yet fourteen years having elapsed since that time, it from liability ?
had now devolved to her. He. could not see on what Mr. MauLE, for the plaintiffs, demurred to the de-
foundation this distinction rested. There was no re- fendants plea. In the first place he insisted that the
ference to it in her letter to Mr. Murray. Mrs. Run- plea, although it denied the defendants' liability as
dell might just as well have said that she meant the to the £1,099, for which time had been given, did
first edition only to belong to Mr. Murray; but what not negative the existence of a distinct debt previous
was her conduct? It was not till after the second edi- to, and independent of, the £1,099, nor the accruing
tion had been published by the plaintiff with great of such a distinct debt subsequent to the account as
additional expense, that the Lady, unfortunately for to the £1,099, and prior to the bringing of the plain-
her own reputation, was induced, he presume 1, by tiffs' action : the plet,, in fact, did not negative the
the advice of others, to bring forward her claim.— existence of such a breach as would give a claim
As an additional evidence that it was the intention to the plaintiffs; it merely set out one particular
of Mrs. Itundell to abandon all idea of participation breach, and alleged as to that particular breach a
in the produce of the woe k, he would refer his Lord- compromise.
ship to an advertisement written by that Lady, and Mr. CHITTY (for the defendants) contended, that
prefixed to the book on domestic cookery. In that the giving of time, for a consideration, to a princi-
advertisement Mrs. Rundell said, that such a little pal, discharged altogether the responsibilityof a surety.
work as the one she had produced would have been —Messrs. Davy and Sawyer, by compromising any
a treasure to herself when she first set out in life, and breach with their debtor without the privity of his
she therefore hoped that it might be useful to others. surety, vitiated their bond in Coto.
In that hope she gave it to the Public, and added, Mr. MAULE denied, that even as regarded the debt
that as she would receive from it no emolument, so of £1,099, the acceptance of the warrant of attorney
she trusted it would escape without censure. From could bar the plaintiffs from au action upon their bond.
this it would appear that the fair author had given The COURT looked at that rule of common law
her work to the whole world; and yet she came to which said that an agreement under seal should not
Mr. Murray, who was one of the world, and said— be discharged by any instrument of inferior value;
you shall not publish it. It might, indeed, be said and held that the plaintiffs, having accepted a war-
from this, that she had given the book to everybody, rant of attorney,were not theteby precluded, in breach
but not to anybody. The Learned Counsel concluded of that security, from seeing upon their bond. The
with expressing his expectation that his Lordship rule of law might sometimes be oppressive, and, in
would see the propriety of dissolving the injunction. that case, relief would be obtained in equity; but it
Mr. SHADWELL, on the same side, detailed the pro- was dangerous for a Court of Law to assume the
ceedings in the present suit, and in a cross cause, to functions of a Court of Equity, without possessing
restrain Mrs. Rundell from publishing her receipt its means of inquiry.
with the plaintiff's additions and embellishments.— Judgment (in demurrer) for the plaintiffs.
In that suit the Lord Chancellor had granted the in-
THE KING V. HANSON.
junction against Mrs. ltundell, which injunction the This was an appeal to the Court of King's Bench
Vice-Chancellor, when the matter was before him,
had not disturbed, but he had granted an injunc- to quash a conviction before the Magistrates of a
County. The defendant was charged, under the Excise
tion against Mr. Murray. laws, with selling beer without a license, and the evi-
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that if both were dente for the information proved merely that the beer
to be restrained we should get no dinner at all. had been sold. Such evidence was contended to be
Mr. SHADWELL said, the Vice-Chancellor had asked
insufficient.
whether Mr. Murray had not been repaid all his es-
Mr.WaLzon (on the part of the Crown) maintained
penses? It was due to the talents of the Lady in that the evidence for the information bad been suffi-
the Art of Cookery, and to the embellishment of the cient. It was alleged that the beer had been sold with-
work by Mr. Murray, toaay that both had been so out a license ; and the onus was thrown upon the de-
excellent that the publication had met with its re- fendant to shew that he had a license. The Learned
ward, and had experienced a most extraordinary sale Counsel, in support of his argument, cited the cases
during a course of several years, but there was no va- (cases upon the Game Laws) of the King v. Stone,
lidity in that argument. It was no reason why a and the King v. Turner, in which it had been held
Court of Equity should not protect Mr. Murray in the sufficient to allege a want of qualification in the de-
enjoyment of a work which he had a right to consi- fendant, leaving it to him to negative such allegation.
der as his exclusive property, inasmuch as he had ori- Mr. ALEXANDER, for the defendant, contended that
ginally been induced to lay out a considerable sum of the informer must, in the fir st instance, prove his case.
Lis own money upon the express assurance, that, if his By the first rules of law crime must be proved against
speculation succeeded, it was to be for his own be- a man before he could be called upon for his defence. -
nefit. The Learned Counsel proceeded to argue, that Cases upon the Game Laws were not analogous with
though there had been no legal assignment of the ori- the present case. It would be very difficult perhaps
ginal copy-right, there was an equitable assignment for an informer to prove that a man had no qualifi-
equally binding. He was in the course of referring cation to kill game ; but he might very easily prove
to cases upon the subject, when his Lordship desired (if such were the fact) by reference to the super-
that the farther hearing might be deferred. visor's books, that a particular defendant had not a
NOVEMBER S. license to sell ale.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL G. MOSES. The COUOT held that the defendant might, with-
His Lordship, on coming into Court, proceeded to out any inconvenience, produce his license if he had
give judgment in this cause. He said that the cause one; and affirmed the conviction.
was originally argued before the present Master of
the Rolls when Vice-Chancellor, from whose decision

it was brought before him in the shape of an appeal.
The question to be decided was, whether certain
leases granted by the Vicar and Vestrymen of the
Parish of Stockton were valid ? It appeared that by
an Act of the 12th of Queen Anne, it was enacted
that the township of Stockton should thenceforth
constitute a distinct parish, and the Bishop of Dur-
ham was empowered by the same Act to grant a
lease of all the waste lands to the Vicar of Stockton,
for the support of the Minister, at an annual rent of
one penny. This Act did not authorise the Vicar to
let the lands on farming leases. The Act, however,
was afterwards amended so as to permit the Vicar
and Vestrymen for the time being to grant leases of
the waste lands for any number of years, at the
highest rent they could get. Under this Act the Vicar
and Vestry had granted leases for 999 years, at a rent
which amounted to only £52 per annum. These
leases it was now sought to set aside by the present
!information. The late Vice-Chancellor had decreed

Mr. COKE, of Holkham, loses £20,000• this year
by the fall of rents
Yesterday, the remains of CASSANDRA AONES, Lady
HAMILTON, were removed privately from her house,
in Weymouth-street, to be interred in the family
vault at Stow St. Edward's, Gloucestershire.
A SCOTCH MUSSULMA Ne-A Gentleman of the
neighbourhood of Perth, who has made various excur-
sions through the most interesting parts of Europe
and Asia, was lately in Constantinople, where he was
more than once exposed to the outrages and insults
of the pc place. Having applied to Mr. SALT, our
Consul, for protection, he gave him in charge to a
Mussulman in the service of the Sublime Porte, un-
der whose guardianship he visited every accessible
object of interest in that wonderful city. He was sur-
prised, on a very short acquaintance, to find that Ws
companioh spoke the English language fluently.
On questioning him he was informed, to his no
small amazement, that he was a native of Scot-
land—that he was born and spent his youth in Lun-
carty Bleachfield, in the neighbourhood of Perth—
that he had had a scuffle with another young
man there, whose life was in consequence despaired
of—and, dreading the punishment of the law, he
had fled from his native place, and taken refuge
in a vessel bound for the Mediterranean. This ves-
sel was captured, and the prisoners carried to Cott•
stantinople, where he was for some time in the ser-
vice of an apothecary, who employed him to sell
drugs through the city, but allowed him a very small
pittance from the sums he thus collected. He after-
wards applied to Mr. SALT, who kindly assisted hint
with money sufficient to commence business as an
apothecary on his own account, and he had been so
successful that he soon repaid the borrowed morey,
and was now in very comfortable circumstance!.—
,- This anecdote will remind our readers of the story of
r our Ambassador, who, in arranging the terms of a
treaty with the Grand Vizier, found- considerable dit.
ficulty in coming to an understanding by means of
an interpreter, until the Vizier, ordering the inter-
preter and all the by-standers to the door, saluted the
Ambassador with 44 Fu lang frae Aberdeen, man?"
and the business was concluded between the coun-
trymen in a nice.

that the leases were valid, and ought not to be dis-
turbed, and an appeal had been entered against that.
decree. He (the Lord Chancellor) had examined the
case with great attention, and though he was of opi-
nion that the Act of Parliament gave greater power
to the Vicar and Vestry than its framers had perhaps
contemplated, yet he could not think that he ought
to interfere in the matter. It had been contended in

support of the information, that this case ought to be
viewed in the same light as that of a Charity, in which
it would be incumbent on the Court to interfere, in

order to see that the trust property was managed in
the most advantageous manner; but this argument
was erroneous. It was clear that the Vicar and Ves-

trymen had acted under the express authority of an
Act of Parliament, .and when it was considered that
no attempt had been made to disturb the leases for
more than a century, during which time they had
beea enjoyed by several persons, he could not bring
himself to interfere with them. In this view of the

case, therefore, it was his opinion that the decree of
the late Vice-Chancellor ought to be confirmed.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 5.