Star.
London, England, 1828-03-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT Ole CHANCERY, Shams 17.
WIRT n. ancHnOtp AND ANOTHLR.
This. was an, application to tea the defendants
frau publishing a work containing the forms of plead-
in4 under Mr. Peel's Acts for 'ate Amendment of the
Criminal Law. A precisely similar application was
made a shirt time since before tbeVict-Cumicem.ort,
when his Honour was pleased to refuse it with costs,
without even calling on the defendant's Counsel to ad-
dress the Court. The case was fully teported at the time.
It will be recollected that the,plaintif bad purchased
the copyright of Mr. Archbold's gook on Criminal
Pleading, and it was stated that the Learned Gentleman
bound himself at the same time to prepare any new
editions which might be required. of that book upon the
payment of a certain sum to him: Upon the passing of
Mr. Peel's Acts, Mr. Archbold published a new work,
• Ilbich Was. the subject of the present applicatiott It
professed to give the .forms of pleadings tinder Mr. Peas
Acts, and was merely a commentary op them. The
plaintiff itisieted that this new book ought properly to
. have formed part of•a new edition- of , the former book
on criminal pleading generally, the copyright of.which
he had purchased from the deftndant ; and, therefore,
,that the 'publication. of it• was an infritigernent.of his
csintract. •
SUGDZNI; Mr. H. Twigs, and Mr. °YEMEN, were'
- heard in iuppoit of the application.
- TheLono CHANCELLOR said, that, assuming that Mr.
• Archbold did contract to publish the new editions of the
work sold to the plaintiff, that circumstance could not
preclude him from publishing any new work on any
• Wm-branch of the law, or upon any other Statutes

which the Legi.lature might subsequently enact, and
therefore his Lordship was of opinion that the Vice-
Chancellor had properly refused the itiunction. If Mr.
it.rchbold'had contracted to carry the plaintiff's book
through itcsevetal editions, and now refused to do so,
it would be open. to the plaintiff to bring an action for
"the breach of contract, although it did not entitle him
isk for the Injunction.
Mr. Parrs...Mi. Ross, and Mr. co; appeared for the
detendant, but were not heard.
The Injunction was refused, with costs.
VICR-CRANCELLOR'S COURT, MA acm 17.
STEWART V. ►MUT AND CO.

• The plaintiff in this case is the proprietor of the Royal
S:anclaril public house, situate opposite the Brunswick
Tbeette, and the defendants, the extensive brewers, are
toottgagees of the plaintlff's premises for the sum of
2.4(X1. The defendants, under the authority vested in
them by the mortgage, were about to sell the public-
hriuse, when the plaintiff applied to this Court, and oh-
, tained an injunction to restrain the defendants from
proceeding with the sale, upon his undertaking to pay
the amount of ;the mortgage into Court within a li-
mited time.
Mr. SVGDMI now asked that the time might be ex.
tended to six months, as the.pliintiff, in consequence of
„, the losses sustained by the demolition of the B. unswick
hackbecia unable to raise the money, which he
wonlsi have done but for that calamity. The
• blefets. WV} bread were about to advance any sum
"AL* be aught requite, but they now.of course, refused
to lend him any assistance, us the public house had
~4searlY been destroyed. Under these citcumstances, the
401.1 a4ed the inlulgetlce of the Court.
Mr. Henna anJ Mr. lkscanuasin appeared for the
defendants.
•
'The Vica CUAACELLOR felt himself bound to refuse
the ttptilication.
. •