The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-07-29 00:00:00

F;

. .
;
;:c.".IA

~.

-

.

L. 4 IV !NTH L LIG IflvGE.
• •
COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY 98.
The LORD CIIANCRLLOR, on coming into Court,
loafed, that he was boand to inform parties, that as
the Sittings were now coming to a close, he would
live judgment every morning in six cases of
which had been beard before him, but not disposed of.
CASE OF THE BANKRUPT CRAWLEY.
Mr. Rosa said, he had an application to make to
the Court. It appeared, that soon after the Com-
missi..n of 1815 issued, a Petition was presented to
this Court to supersede it on the part of the bank-
rope, and the ground upon which it proceeded, was
the existence of a prior Commission in 1808. His
Lordship thought, at the time that Petition was pre-
. 'voted, that the best mode of proceeding would be to
bring the matter before a Court of Justice. The• is-
sue was accordingly directed, butmeveri prosecuted,
end now another Petition had been presented by the
bankrupt, and it was in the paper. The application
he had therefore to make was, that the Petition of the
assignees might also stand upon the paper.
The LORD CHANCELLOR assented to the motion.
LITERARY PROPERTY.
• e. TOR Ray. WK. PRITCRARD.

-

MRS. GTE . _
In this case, as we fortterly mentioned, an In.
l onction was obtained by the Plaintiff to prevent the
*Defendant from publishing certain letters which silo
had sent to him in confidence.
Mr. HART this day showed vans* why the Hone-
tion should not be dissolved. •
The Court was much crowded, and tire ease occu-
pied the Court till half-past three o'clock.
The Learned Counsel, after going through' ,the
particulars of Mrs. Gee's affidavit, which we for-
merly gave, contended that she had net stated the
facts of the case with that precision which became
her. Instead of the Defendant being introduced into
her house as the adopted son of her husband, she
knew him so be the natural son of that husband, and
abe received him accordingly as inch. This the De-
fendant stated most positively in an affidavit he had
made, and he stated strongly in that affidavit that he
was provided for by Gee, who died in 1815, leaving
his widow the interest of 17,0001.. which sum was
to come to Defendant at her death, unless she saw
cause before that to mite a different order. Snob
after her husband's death, she altered her conduct to
Defendant, treating him no longer with respect, nor.
allowing him to all her mother; bet, on the cee.l
trary, showing him every mark of disrespect, al
letting at the same time, that neither the deceased nor
herself ever gave him any reasonable hopes of enjoy.
ing what he now claimed. The Defendant further
alleged in his affidavit, that he had never done (or at
least was unconscious of hiving ever done) any thing
to induce her to change her conduct, he being at the
present moment Rector of the parish of Walton.on-
Hill (as we understood), in the county of Surrey, and
that he felt it his duty to publish a series of letters
she had sent him ice the most affectionate terms, not
fOr the sake of procuring any profit, but the vindica-
tion of his moral character. T 3 publish secrets was
t shin& be Certainly di!!, not wish, but his character
was too valuable to be trifled with. Such was the
affida‘it of the Defendant, and he (Mr. liars) would
humbly submit, that the question now before his
Lordship was, whether the Plaintiff could restrain
the Defendant from such publication, or not. In the
eases of Pope's Letters, and Lord Chesterfield's also,
Injunctions had been granted; but there the Court
acted on • principle quite different from that in this
case. Lord Bathurst, in the case of Lord Chester.
field's Letters, seemed much to doubt how he should
proceed, and therefore, when he gave his judgment,
he said there was no right to publish the letters with.
out consent, and he granted an Injunction ; but in
doing so, he recommended the executors to allow the
publication of the letters. Since that there bad been
other cases decided; and one to which he would now
allude was that of Pere/mat v. Phipps, before Sir
Thomas Plume', Vice.Chancellet, but now Master
of the Rolls. 'The bill filed in that ease stated, she
had written private letters to a Mr. Milford, on the
understanding that he was not to publish them, or
permit them to be published ; but one appeared in
the Paper called The News, and the Court will
prayed to restrain their further publication, though
there the letters were not published for profit. The
Vice-Chancellor gave a most elaborate, and indeed
important judgment, stating that the general ground
on which such Injunctions were granted was, that
letters were literary property ' • but feeling these let-
ters were not for profit, bet for vindication of chit-
litter, he did not cause to interfere.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Very true; but you
have advertised your letters to he published, and you
have done so in a public Newspaper.
Mr. HART—Yee, my Lord. hut not to be sold.

The Lon° CHANCELLOR—Why advertke it in a
Newspaper if you did not intend to have profit ?
What did the party intend by doing so ?
Mr. HART then stated the further contents of the
affidavit made by the Reverend Defendant, and con-
tended the Court could not continue the Injunction
on such grounds.
Mr. WE.Ttatittu. followed on the same side, and
in a most able and.lnusinous speech, more than an
haw long, contended that the point which this case
involved was one of supreme importance. It in-
♦olved the general question, whether lettere written
by parties in time of friendship,coeld or could not be
published when that friendship ceased to exist ? The
case now before the Court ought to be duly ex-
amined, for his Lordship would hod that there was
not a single statement made, that the Defendant was
bound to return these letters, or that the retention
of them was-a criminal charge, 'or a breach of trust.
In looking rover fludrois's 71-enlist on the Powers of
the Court of Star Chamber, he found that that Court
had Do jelsdiction, and:lndeed never interfered in
the poblttation of auk letters, except they contained
• metters'of f: 6 '
The LAIRD CIAWCIILLOIL tbeeght Mr. Wenittren
might save hionott the trouble of going into that
point, for the of libel was not in his jurisdic-
tion. Libel-Wes a crime, and he certainly could not
prevent, bylrla injunctions, any person from com-
mitting a crime silo chose to do it.- The power of
punishing in criminal tales lay only with•him in the
case of infants, wards of tiniCeert.- It-should alto
be remeinberid, ibit distention:me of friendship
between parties did not by any means give this Coact
any addillooel power.