Star.
London, England, 1827-07-04 00:00:00

LnNOM AN AND CO. V. SMITH.

Mr. SUADWELL applied on behalf of the plaintiffs, the
well-known publishers of Paternoster-row, for a special
injunction, to restrain the defendant, the Rev. Mr. Smith,
from printing, publishing, or exposing for sale, any copy
or copies of the late Lindley Murray's Abridgment of
the knglish Grammar, as published by him in 1802,
with several additions, alterations, and improvements.
The affidavit on which the application was founded
stated, that Mr. Murray published his English Grammar
in the year 1797. The work went through several edi-
tions, and in the year 1802, Mr. Hurray was induced to
publish an abridgment of the work, the copyright of
which, as well as that of the original publication, was
in the plaintiffs. This abridgment reached no less than
93 editions op to the time when the defendant Smith
published copies.of the work. The defendant admitted
his having done so, and was now satisfied not only that
he had no right to publish copies of the work in question,
but that an injunction should be issued against him.
The Rev. Mr. Smith, addressing his Honour, ob.
served. that he was led into error by seeing a copy of
the work published without any title, from which cir-
cumstance he was induced to think that it was the same
edition as that published in 1797. He had discovered
his mistake, however; and, having looked into the
affidavit of the plaintiffs, was satisfied that the statement
th.tein contained was correct, and he had therefore no
intention to oppose this motion. Indeed, so far from
wishing to do so, before he published his edition, he
waited oa Mr. Green, one of the plaintiffs, and sub-
mitted to that Gentleman a copy of the work, observiniis
that if he had taken any part of the legal property of
Messrs. Longman, he was willing to erase it from the
work if pointed out. " No, no," said Mr. Green, owe
must have a rap at you."—(Laughter): " I told him,"
the Rev. Gentleman continued, " that lwas willing to
give him all that an application to the Coirrt of Chan-
cery would do for him ; but he reminded me of Naamau
the Syrian, who, when desired to cleanse•himself in the
waters of the Jordan, preferred the waters of Egypt : sb
it would appear that the plaintiffs prefer the order of
your Honour to the relief which I was willing to afford
them." (Renewed laughter). The Rev. Gentleman con-
cluded by hoping that the injunction would point out
to him those passages of the work claiined by the
plaintiffs.

The Vacs CHANCELLOR grained the injunction on
the teams prayed for.

COURT OV KING'S BENCH, JULY S.

FENNEL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF .RENNELp AGAINST THE

lISH P OF LINCOLN.

This was an action of Quare impedit, which came be-
fore the Court uf.on a writ of error from the Common
Pleas. The plaintiff claimed, as administratrix of her
husband, a right to present to a living in the defendant's
diocess, which became vacant in the lifetime of her
husband, who was one of the Prebendaties of Salisbury,
having, in right of his prebend, the power of presenta-
tion, which, however, he never exercised. The defend-
ant, being of opinion that the right of presentation, not
having been exercised by the deceased pi ebenclary, de-
•olved upon his successor, and was not to be considered
as any part of the per►onal estate of the deceased, re-
fused to induct a ClOsytnan whom the plaintiff, as ad-
ministratrix to her deceased husband, had presented,
upon which she brought her action in theCommonP•eas,
where the question was argued, and that Court decided
against her claim in favour of the defendant. Flom
this decision she appealed by uric of error to the Court
roKing% Bench, where the question was argued some
time since, and the case stood °vor for judgment, there
being a difference of opinion on the Bench. This mot n-
lit their Lordships delivered their opiniun seriatim :
the three puisne Judges were in favour of the pl.intiff's
right to present, and she accordingly had the judgment
of the Court iu her favour, reversing the judgment of

the Common Pleas, althirgh .ord Tenterden's opinion
coincided with the judgensuitif that Court, and was in
favour of the defendant..
TNt %IWO *ohm? RIGBY WASON.
Mr. BROUGRAW and Mr. ERSKINI shewed cause
against a rule Nisi for a criminal information obtained
by the Attorney General in consequence of a letter
the defendant wrote to Mr. Dawson, an attorney,
abusing him, and challenging him to fight. Mr. Daw-
son, in his professional character, had called upon the
defendant to make inquiries concerning the amount
and particulars of his property, that he might afford
correct information to a Gentleman who was the father
a young Lady to whom Mr. Wason was paying his
addresses. Mr. Wason now stated that he had been
engaged to this Lady for five years, and that her father
had, after this long. courtship, refused him, upon an
objection made to his fortune ; and he could not help
thinking that he had not been fairly dealt with by Mr.
Dawson, for that his fortune amounted to 1,2001. a
year. and he had professed his willingness to make a
settlement to that amount upon the Lady. The de-
fendant also felt hurt at a letter which Mr. Dawson
wrote to him, implying a doubt of his title to some
land ; and under the impression that he was not fairly
dealt with, he had written the letter complained of.
The Learned Counsel would not attempt to Justify that
letter, but they thought that Mr. Dawson was not
entitled to the extraordinary interference of the Court,
bat should beleft to the ordinary remedy.
The Comm, however, intimated that the defendant's
feelings and suspicions were no justification of the letter
he had written; upon which
Mr. ERSKINE begged of the Court to allow the mat-
ter to stand over, and

Mr. BM:MOHAN suggested that it should stand over
until to-morrow, with an understanding that the rule
should be made absolute if a proper apology was not
made.
Lord THHTZEDII4....If Mr. Dawson is not satisfied.

Mr. Baommam—l believe it must be so.
Lord TENTIRDIN—The rule then must be made ab-
solute Nisi, so that we are to hear no more of it ; but if
satisfaction is not made, the rule for the information is
to be considered to be granted.