Star.
London, England, 1827-08-17 00:00:00

IN re 110LNIIiS.

Mr. SUGDEN moved on a petition for a commission
of lunacy again;[ the Rev. William Holmes, of North-
ampton. The accompanying affidavits stated various
instances of unsoundness of intelkcr.

Mr. HORNE, who opposed the petition, was not heard,
his Lotdship being of opinion that further inquiry,
which le then directed, should he had before the com-
mission could be granted.

VICE•CHANCELLOR'S COURT, SUGUSI 16.
LONGMAN AND Co. V. SMITH.

This was an application to dissolve an injunction that
had been obtained to restrain the defehdarft from pirating
pity part of the additions which the plaintiffs had made
to A new edition of the Abridgment of Murray's Eng-
lish Grammar.

The case had been several times befne the Court,
and was now finally disposed of.
Mr. Smith, t' c defendant, appeared in person to move
that tbc injunction be dissolved. He said that the plain-
tiffs had firir of all sw nn that he had pirated sixty
pages ; then that be bad pirated nearly the whole
bunk ; and lastly, tl at he had pirated thirty pages.—
How this contradictory swearing could be re.-onciledi
he lett the plaintiff: to explain; but he was quite sure
that it would not be tolerated iu any Court of Justice,
and he did not think that the Court of Chancery
would allow it. When the injunction was first
moved for, he had agreed to offer no oppo,iti.,n to
the motion, upon tit, express understanding uith Mr.
Loraine, the pittintiffa. Counsel, that the plaintiffs
should point out what passages they called their
own, in order that he (Mr. Smith) might be enabled to
avoid inserting them in his bcok. This they had sub-
• sequently refuted to do, notwithstanding their engage-
• sr ent ; and he now moceJ that the injunction might be dis-
solved. Mr. Smith assured his Honour that hebad evety
disposition to avoid any thing like piracy, and all he
'asked was, that the plaintiffs would point out what part;
of the book they called theirs, without which he might
unintentionally appropriate to himself something that
'belonged ti them.
Mrs SHADWELL, in support of the inkinction, con.
tended that esti,' man ought to know what was his
own, and had no right to call upon other persons to
declare what their property was. Murder that he might
not take it. its to setting fordo in the present proceed.
_joss all the parts of the book which belonged to his
shams, the request was perfettly tidsculuus. II such a
line pf conduct were adoi.ted, motions for injunctions
would be as long as the books to which they related:
The I..earoed Counsel proceeded to argue in suppott ol
injvnition. but Mr. Smith interrupted him so con'
tinnady, that it was impossible to understand a word
of what was poing c.n.
The VIOL-CHANCELLOR told Mr. Smith he bad no
doubt there was a very teapectable place in which he

had all the talk to himself, blithe must not have it there.'
Ile must not interrupt the Counsel.
Mr. SHADIVELL continued.—lt was quite sufficient
for his clients to slate generally that the wot k had been
pirated by the defendant.
The Vtce-CtraNcet.Lon said, the difficulty that nc-
curved to him wa,, that the additions of the plaintiffs
might be so interlarded throughout the bimk, that •Mr.
Smith might not know when ne was infringing their
copyright.
Mr. Suanwitt.t. said they had pot the book into Court
with the passages marked.
Mr. Smith—Yes ; but they won't give me that book,
or mark another fir n e, in the same manner, although
their own Counsel, Mr.L Iraine,piotnised me they would.
The Vice-CtiaNCELLOR said he could have no know.
ledge of any such agsieement ; and if he had, he could
not enforce it.

Mr. SHADVIELL said he had nothing to do with-any
such agreement, and he conceived the ca.e to come
before his Honour now de novo.
Mr. Smith—Ye., that will answer your purpose very
well, because it gives you an advantage; but it won't
answer mine. I have got the case to this point—your
clients made thisag reement, and I will have it performed.
The VICE.CHANCELLOR laughed, and said this was
as bad as Mr. Adams telling Lord Eldon he would
make him give a decision in.a certain cause.
Mr. Smith said, the way in which they had sworn
would justify him in taking the case to the Old Bailey.
•
lhe Vicc CHANCELLOR explained to Mr. Smith that
it would be to his disadvantage if all the parts of the
book alleged to be pirated were put upon the record ;
for if they succeeded in proving that he had pirated any
part of the book which belonged to them, and that he
had published the same, he would have to pay the costs
of the whole cf the long an& expensive procee,?ings.
Mr. Smith said he had not publi%ed any copies of
his work.

Mr. SHADWELL said they had a positive and uncon-
tradicted affidavit to the contrary.
Mr. Smith said he had sent 1,100 copies to his book.
seller, but they had remained in his watehouse, and were
net her sold nor exposed for sale.
The VICE•CHAKCELLOR sAid, in that case no profit
had been made. He did not wish to persuade people to
make affidavits, but it Mr. Smith chose to swear to what
he now averred, he would dissolve the injunction.
Mr. Smith, however, slowed no disposition to make
this dffida•it.

The VIce•CHANCELLOR said, the injunction must
stand. He thought the order had better be to this effect:
'" That the defe. dant should be restrained from intro.
ducing into any edition, to be published by him, of the
Abridgment of Lindley Mierray's Grammar, any of tae
additions which the plaintiffs had made to the work."
Mr. SHADWELL said, he thought the words " altera-
tions and additions" should form a part of the order. I
The Vice CHANCELLOR could not allow the word
" alterations," because they might have made some
omissions which would be included under the word

Mr. Smith said, they bad made omissions, and added
• good deal of nonsense. They had omitted the sub-
junctive mood.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR.—ReaIIy, Mr. Smith, you
appear to be very much in the imperative mood to day.
The injunction was then un '.ers•ci,d to be confirmed,l
if his Honour did not mention it again.

ASSIZE IN I'ELLIGENCE.

LEWES, ACOUST
BRYAN V. WHISTLER, CLERK.

This was an action of trespass for breaking and enter-
ing a vault in the church of St. Clement's, Hastings,
belonging to the plaintiff, and disturbing him in the
possession of it. Plea, Not Guilty.
Mr. Gummy and Nlr. CHITTY conducted the plain-
tiff's case, and Mr. MARRYAT the defendant's.
The case proved in evidence was this:—The plaintiff
was a Gentleman of fortune residing generally in Lon-
don, but having considerable property in the neighbour-
hood of Hastings. The defendant was the Rector ofl
the parish of Sr. Clement's, in Hastings. In the year
1819, the plaintiff was staying at Hastings with his
family and a Miss Williams, a particular friend,
who had for some years resided with him. In the
course t f that year Miss Williams died, bequeath-
ing a considerable estate to the plaintiff, who, being
anxious to pay her the last tribute of respect, ap-
plied to the defendant for permission to build a vault
in the Church, in which the remains of Nliss Williams,
and at future periods, those of others of his family might I
be deposited. He acc, rdirgly applied to the defendant'
for leave to build the vault, asking him what fee he
would charge for his permission? The defendant re-
plied, " that he should open his mouth pretty nide, ancill
supposed that SOL would not hurt the plaintiff." After
se.me discussion 201. was agreed upon, and that sum
was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, who there-
upon said, r. now, you may go to work a, soon as you
please." The plait:tiff and the defendant and the par isli
clerk then went into the Church together, and selected
a spot on which tie vault should be built. The vault
was, accordingly, built on that spot, and on the wall
over it, a tablet, expressing t' at Miss Williams was butted
there in a vault, " appropriated to the plaintiff and his
f.mily,"was,with the knowledge and consent of the de.
lendunr,esei.ted. These works together cost the plaintiff
a 3RI if near Entry pounds. The day after the vault was
finish d Miss Williams's funeral took place; the service
being performed by the defendant, who then had an,
opportunity of seeing the vault, which he examined.'
and to which be then made no objection. The plaintiff
then returned to hiindon, where be continued fur some
years without ever revisiting Hastings In the year 1825,
the defendant proposed to the parish desk, and some of
.the other parish officer s, to open the plain:iff% vault, and
to deposit there the • mains ot a youngLady.namedFit m•
ing, then just deceased. This was cenumtiiitated to the
I:laiutiffsw4premonstsatedrepeatedly with the defendant
upon the subject, as did also the other panic. to whom the
defendant had made known his intention. The de-
fendant, however, persisted, and accordingly bad the
vault opened, and the corpse of Misr tning deposited
in it. The plaintiff then wrote to the defendant upon
the subject, to which the latter sent a urinal answer,'
stating that the vault as as much Leger than he had in.
tended it should be; that the language tat the inscription ,
on the tablet was la ghly obj ctionable; and that the fee
of Alt. for s ermission to burl) the vault, was far ton
small. He cm chided by stating, that there was plenty
of room in the vault now, both for all the plaintiff's
family, Dad for kb:l4W elm; and by requesting that if
the plaintiff wrote again, ke woad pay the pave. In
consequence of this letter the present action was brought.
Mr. MARRYAT, inn the defendant, took a technical
objectio.rto the form oh the action, which the Ltaraes.

'Judge reserved for the cons;Jelath n of the Court above,
The Learned Counsel then itlitessedilte Jut y, contend.
ing that no real injtny had been it.flrctr d unite the
plaintiff; no tights had been infringed ; no feelings ha,l
been wouneed ; and the smallest possible amount of
damages would, undfr such 61 runtst AnCe3, coroplrtriy
sati-fy the jrts:ice f the ca,e.
The Lrarned Jutscu summed up the ca. e to the Jury,
whe, after a vet y short deliberation, limn& their verdict
f.,r the plaintiff—Damages, Fifty 'Pantos ; subject, 4
tout sr, to the p .int of law teLet veJ. et
DURHAM. Ave. 15.
Till KING 9. DILLATIE.

This was a ctiminal information etthibi•ed against
the defendant, by his Majesty's A!torney General, for
a nrisdeineatrnr, he having endeavoured to bribe two of
the officers belonging to the Pt eventive Service, on the
coat of this county, to permit him to land a cargo of
smuggled Geneva.
The Jury bond the defendant Guilty.
Garven Miller and John Miller, two very young men,
brothers, who are employed in one of the coat•pus in
this county, stood indicted for attacking an old man,
named Thomas Glenwright. on the King's highway,
putting him in bodily fear, and stealing Irom his per-
son his watch and money.
The Jury found both prisoners Grrilly, but tecom.
mended them to mercy, on the ground r t their having
a good previous character, and beleving them to have
bcen in liquor at the time. -
The JUDGF: said the tecommendation should be at
tended to.--•-• Judgment of death recorded.
Middleton Animersom was capitally convicted, and
sentence of death recorded against him, for stealing one
ewe sheep, the property of a farmer named Thomas
Oliver, at Bishopwearmouth, in this county.