Star.
London, England, 1828-11-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, !Cm 11.
I.IURRAY V. HEATH AND OTHERS.
Mr. HORNE moved, by way of appeal, against an
order which the Vice Chancellor had recently made in
this cause. It will be recollected that an injunction
was obtained by Mr. Murray, the bookseller, against
the assignees of Mr. Charles Heatti, to restrain them
fiom selling certain engravings vat ich were a part of
his estate. It appeared on that occasion that Mr. Mur-
ray had employed Mr. Heath to engrave fer him certain
plates illustrative of the works of Lord Byron and Mr.
Crabbe, and that Mr. Heath bad retained a certain
number of impressions for his own use, in accordance
with %%hit was said to be the practice of the trade
in this respect. When the injunction was granted,
tfe Vice Chancellor directed an issue to be tried
at law, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such
an wage existed or not? On the trial of the issue,
which took place in the Court ofr Common Pleas,
the Jury found that it was the practice of the en-
gravers, to retain impressions of their works " for their
own use and benefit," and they were about to pronounce
upon their right to sell these copies, when Mr. Justice
Gaselee told them that there was no such point in the
issue, and their verdict was confined therefore to the
usage. On a motion being made to dissolve the injunc-
tion restraining the sale, the Vice-Chancellor said the
verdict of. the Jury sa as not sufficient, and directed an
action of hover to be brought for the purpose of ascer-
taining the sight to sell the copies, at the same time con-
tinuing she injunction.
The Lotto CHANCELLOR said it was clear that an
action of trover could not ascertain the point in ques-
thn, because t' e right of possessi,,n, which the Jury
bad already found, would decide such an action.
Mr. HORNS concurred in this, and enlarged upon the
great hardship which the as iguees sustained, in being
led into such expensive proceedings about a matter so
unimportant —the whole. value of the plates not amount-
ing to 81.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (M ill) *born was Mr.
STEwART) opposed the motion, and insisted that the
questior, hot, ever twin putt int it might seem to be in
value, was of gnat consequence to Mr. Murray as a
puhloher, and to the whole (lade, because the principle
would extend to matters o•f much greater moment than
that now in disput... Me contended also, that the mo-
tion ought not to be entertain:d, because the order
agains sah:ch it purported to be an appeal had not yet
been drawn up. It was true, that the Vice-Chancellor
had pronounced such an order, and it had been entered
in tl.t register's book, but it had not yet been reduced
into such a form that the Court could deal with it.

A d►scu,tion enst.ed i n this point, when
The Lona CHANCELLOR said, if the parties insisted
t n it, they had a right to have the que:von decided,
notw th•tanding the small value of this particular sub-
ject. lle th..ugl t that an acti.m.oti the case should be
brought with a count in tiover, which would raise the
point, acid he therefo►e ditecied such an action, which
should be tried at the sitting, after the present term I and
in the mean time he ()Meted the injunction to subsist.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wiernawrsca,
CARPENTER V JONES AND OTHERS.

Nov. 11.

This was an action tot libel, tried at the last sittings
here. The plaintiff is a cal vi r and gilder at Bath, and
the libel imputed to him, that having to frame a va-
luable picture for a Lady at 114th, Le took out the ori-
ginal, substituted a copy, and afterwards boasted ef
what'he had done. The Jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff--Damages, ls.
Sir J. SCA KLETT now moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be had.: A justification had
been pleaded that the libel was ttue ; and a prison of
e name of Stafford, who was at first included as
a deendant, distinitly proved that a copy had been
substituted for the original l icture; that the plaintiff
b •asted of it, saying that a copy was as good; and,
after Mr. Staffold l•ad concluded his evdelice, a
per:ect stranger, who was sitting in Court, jumped
up, and said he wished to 4e examined for the sake
if justice. Mr. II ougliam, who was for the phin-
tilf, examined h.ni. Aled he swore that Mr. Stafford was
a man of had . hal acter, and wholly unworthy of cre-
dit on hi oath. Sit J. Scaltot cross-examined him as to
what bintigl t h m I ete, and he said that he was attend-
ing a cause in Chancery, but Le had had no communi-
cation with the plaintiff whatever. The present appli-
cation was loanded opus affidavita, showing that ahis '
stranger was an uncertificated bankrupt; that he himself,
was of a bad character, and ought not to be believed ;
Inrieaver, that he had been in communicatiun with the
vlaint;ff on the very day befoie the trial for several
hours, and had been in a privateroom with him. thher
afrt:lavits showeJ de.laiations on the part of the plain-
tar and his attorney, that Stafford was included in the
i.±-caration at first, to preveat his giving evidence: but
as it cleat ly appeared that Mr. Stafford had nothing to
with the libel, he was acquitted, and then suffered to
I'se evidence. The Limed Counsel said he made this
roti:ion on the grounds of surprise, and conspiracj on
the other side.—Rule granted.
TATTISON L. JONZS.
This WAS an action of libel brought by the plain:iff,
v. .!..o lived as servant with the defendant, the Marshal
I f the King's Bench, for an alleged libel, in which be
obtained a verdict, damages 801.
Sit JAMES SIIARLETT moved for a role to set aside
the verdict on the grounds of mi.ditectam. The Learned
Judge (Lord Tenterdei ), in his charge to the Jerry, has.
ill said h.: left it to them to say, whether the letter (the
cau.e of the action) was a privileged conimuniccion
under the circumstance,?
The Coma were of opinion, that the letter having
been wi it ten to the plaii.t ff's then master, reflecting on
his character, and the latter writing to the defendant in
answer to be more explicit, did away ith the right of
the letter being a privileged one.—Rule refused.
GLASSPI)OL V. Y UN(.

This was an action of troffer against the Sheriff of
Surrey. A judgment for 140!. being obtained against

a person named Meeting, the defendans, as Sheriff, sold
the furniture of Meering's house. He alterwares te-
ceived notice from the plaintiff that the goods wese
her's. She had passed under the name of Nleering ;
but the fact was, that Meeting's wife lived in Devon
shire, and that he had married the plaintiff in London,
but when she discovered his former marriage she lelt
him.—The verdict was for the plaintiff.
Sir J. SC ARIA= now move.] to enter a horsuit. on
the ground that the plaintiff bad acted in such a way
As to make the %mid believe she was V. e wiieof Meer
ing, and that she must take the consequences of her
own conduct.

The COURT granted a rule t-1 show cause why a
oonsuit should not be entered, of the verdict reduced to
701. the sum for which the goods sold.

NAYLOR V. TAYLOR.

This was an action on a policy of Insurance effected
on the brig Monrch, on a voyage from Liverpool to
Buenos Ayres. There was a stipula ion in the p !icy
that if the port of Buenos Apes was in a state t.f block-
ade, the vessel should be at liLetty to proceed to any
otller Fort to discharge her cargo. N..tice of the bl ick-
ade was given be:ore the vessel sailed, arti it ;tope tied
that when the ve,sel at rived off MotsteVideo,thellaranga,
a Brazilian brig of war, came up hnd ciptured he,,
taking her into Monte Video. After some days a Bra-
zilian crew was put on board, and the ve.sel sent ell
for Rio Janeiro, to he adjudged on a charge of breaking
the blockade. Oa the passage the English Master and
four of his old clew, who were on board, rose against
the Brazilians, and ore, powered them. Having put
the BlaZ liars into a boat, the Captain and his lout mvn
took the vessel safely-into Liverpool, where the cargo
was landed.
Sir J. SCARLETT now moved to set the verdict
had for the plairt,ff, on the ground that the Cart tin had
no right to retake the ship when It was under sivizure by
a Brazilian officer, such vsnditct being against the rules
of Nations, and a breach of the blockade. It was im
possible, too, that the insurers could recover for a total
loss, when the cargo was safe in Liverpool.
The Court granted a tole nisi.
TONKINB SAVART.

Sir J• SUABLE IT sated that in this case, the plai stiff
being desirous to purchase some shay es in the Continental
Gas Company, embed to the defendant, who i, a Looker,
to purchase the Shares. There were two desci iption
of Shales in the market at this time, one belonging to
the Directors, which bore a larger nominal premium
than the other description, but which were in make at
the same price. The plaintiff thinking the defendant
charged him U. per share beyond the market price,
brought his acti:in to recover that amount; but upon
the circumstance being expla ned, Lnrd Ter ter den inti-
mated to Mr. Gurney OA he had better consent
have the plaintiff nrn,uited, as it was clear the broker
acted fairly. Mr. Gurney. however, insisted that the
case shr,uld go to the Jury, and a verdict was taken for
the plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, the COURT granted a rule
to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside.