The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-12 00:00:00

LITP.R ART INJUNCTION.

IPINIMCII AND NAUMDBIL O. PHILIP uost•
Mr. WItTUIROLL applied to his Honour the Vice-
Chancellor, en behalf el the Plaintiffs, Messrs. Pin-
prick and Meander, of the Mentorian Press, Loa•
don, who are the poblisbers and proprietors of nut-
meroes awful Works for the instruction of Youth,
for an Injunction to restrain the Defendant, Philip
Rose, of Bristol, from i►rintisg and pablish leg pi-
rated editions of their popular treatises, io geestion
ant Ammer, entitled " Gwiecluame,” mere' of welch
he cud io Court, and pointed out the similarity
that stated between the genuine and the pirated co-
pies. The Learned Counsel observed, that the Dr.
fendsnt, availing himself of the greet reputation of
" Pinnock's Catechisms," and their very general
adoption in Schools, &c., had not only imitated the
said works by printing similar title-pages, and in-
geniously rode tog to evade the law of copy-
right, by twisting (as it is technically termed) or
transposing certain passages, bet he bad had the effron-
tery to copy whole peps verbatim ; and that he was
not unconscious of having invaded the Plaintiffs'
property, appeared from his having asked another
bookseller, whether be thought be bad altered them
sufficiently to evade the law.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to read parallel
passages, and passed the highest encomiums en the
genuine works ; and, in contrasting them with the
pirated editions, observed, that this literary pilferer
bad been over canning in twisting the passages to hie
purpose, for in those instances where he had de-
parted from the origiaal, he bad generally done so to
the deterioration of the pirated copies, by either
omitting o► misstating some of the most material
facts in history, &c.; thus substituting inferior com-
positions, whereby, notwithstanding the pains and
'spew the Plaintiffs had been at in producing and
awing publicity to works of reel merit, to serve the
important purposes of education, the youth of this
kingdom were in danger of havii g erroneous idea*
Instilled into their minds ; thereby defeating the
leachible intentions of the Pisintiffr, as well as de-
priving them of that fair share of profit to which
their exertions had so justly entitled them.
Hie Honour, the Vucc.CitAyccLLoe, having ate.
mined the books in question, folly contorted with
the learned Counsel, and wording', granted an
Injunction to the following effect :—" That the De-
fendant be restrained front printing, publishing, sell-
lag, or esposing to sole, the hooks produced in Court
(vit. the Catechisops of the History of England, Gee-
grephy, Bible and Gospel, English Grammar, and
First Catechism), or any book or work in which the
matter or any of the Plaintiffs' books Of works, or
any part or parts thereof, is or are verbally or sub-
'testis'', introduced."

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. JULY 10.
IRIELII AND OTHERS r. RAIIILEIUIL

Mr. Scancrru stated, that this was an action to
set asideanaward.Th• Plaintiffs were the assignees of
a baokrept, rimed Diogle, who had resided lu G ro-
wel! ; the Defendant was a Gentleman of large for-
tune and esteosiva influence in the same county.—
The present question was one of very considerable
importance, embracing no less a sem than 50,0001.
since by it would be decided whether Defendant wen
to pay the Plaintiffs 20,0001. or the Plaintiffs were to
ply him 30,0001. Dingle had been engaged in mercan-
tile transactions, and had become indebted, as was said,
to Mr. Rashleigh in a very large sem. Mr. Rash-
leigh having, in an andefeocied cause, obtained a ver-
dict against bins for 30,0001., and for that seas be
came to prove, bet the Commissioners refused to
allow his proofs; he, however, got possession of
certain leases and leasehold property belonging to the
hankrapt, comprising almost the whole of his estate,
and the assignees brought actions of ejectment to re.
gain possession of that property. These were after.
• arils referred to Mr. Macmahon, es arbitrator ; bat
the Plaintiffs not being satisfied with his conduct,
parceled a deed of revocation, which they forwartled
to London to be served on him personally ; be, how-
-1 ern, avoided receiving it, as he (Mr. Scarlett) con.
tended, intentionally, till he had made his award,
calling MI the assignees to pay Mr. Raildrigh 30,0001.
to try whether here was an intentional avoidance the
present action was brought.

The award, dat edthe MA of September, was pet
in. The award was originally to have been made
on the 4.3 d of January, bat the time was afterwards
enlarged for four month., and the assignee; And until
the Ist of Jam given them for putting in their ac.
enema.

It vs. thee proved by s whom thst Mr. Mist.
unison bad repeatedly avoided to see him, knowing,
as witness *opposed, for what plume he cause.
The Curie JusTlM—lf a person intentionally
avoids a person who comes to him, and tells him be
hes a letter which he must deliver to him personally,
does he net intentionally avoid swine she contents
of that letter? Ile who avoids tecriring a letter
avoids keening its contents.
Mr. GAMER said, he could prove that Mr. Moe.
ashen had not the mete distant idea that the letter
contained any deed of revocation. If he had enter
Weed any such idea, the circumstance would not
have occerred. Is all which Mr. illacesshen had
dome, he bad hero gelded by what ho considered the
jostles of the cam He could prove the door was
not locked.
The Cott* JusTics.—Bet he did set desire the
Gentleman lobo had the letter to Coln. is. I dibeas•
I
say, Mr. Memnahois acted most honourably,
from the best motives. Mill, however, I am of e pt I

PR u.: 70;

nion be intenting.olly avoided trceisieg the kiiee
Ind thereby lutenist:many avoided knottier& iti coo.
tests.
Verdict for the Plaintiff—Damage, 1.

ARCHES' COURT, DOCTORS' COMMONS, /Inv 10.

TIMICIR V. TURKIC

This was a suit of separatlen, brought by Elise.
bells Teener against her huvband, Francis Mark
Turner, Erg. en the ground of adultery.
The marriage in this case was proved, by a copy
ado@ marriage register and other evidence, to have
taken place la 1811, us was likewioe the identity of
'he parties. Their subsequent cohabitation, their
being received as man and wife by Mr. Jeffries, the
lady's father, slid tiers being four children, ism of
the marriage.
The facts were these :—They lived and cohabited
together till 1816. Mr. Turner (an officer in the
army) being about to joie his regiment then stationed
•t Brighton, it was thought proper the lady should
go to he► father's house, in London, on account of
some peg-Wary difficulties which they laboured en.
der, and it appeared they never cohabited after that
time. The husband busing afterwards seduced and
carried on an adulterous intercourse with a young
woman named Phelps, with whom be had lived and
cohabited as man and wife, under the assumed name
of Mr. sod Mrs. Thompeon,st Brighton, West Cliff,
sad other places.
The facts of the Adultery being proved by various
witnesses, the Court pronounced sentence of oepara.
lion accordingly.
The besbond, who welt in Court, wos so mock
affected on hearing the sentence pronounced, that he
burst into a fined of tears,

RIGHT OF PARIcII CLERGYMEN TO PRESIDE
AT VEITRY MELTING'.

This was a question on admission of smirk. est&
bited against, end citation server) upon Alessodec
WHeth, Esq. (in the Mare of a criminal process),
at the instance of she RP?. Dr. Wilson, Rector of
the perish of St. Mary, Aldermnry, charging the
Defendant with nelawfolly and indecently interrupt.
ing and preventing the said Rector from exercising the
oltce of Choireien at a Vestry Meeting, which was
called for the purpose of electing a Churchwarden.
Dr. Wm. ADAIIII, as Counsel for the Defendaet,
objected to the admissibility of the articles propound.
ed, on the eased that no act of tielence bad boom
committed. lie regretted that • dispute of each as
unpleasant mere should have come into this Court.
The facie were shortly these :—Tb. Meeting basing
assembled, Mr. wet proposed by the pa.
rishioners to take the Chair. lie did not do so, bet
took a seat at the other end of the table. On Dr.
Wilson's coming In, and taking the chair (as he had
been in the regular habit of doing for two years pre..
ceding), Mr. M'Beth opposed his addressing the
Meeting, by interrupting biers its the act of so doing ;
upon which Dr. Wi:seo got up and left the rorma.-..
There was no insinostion that Mr. Milleth had cern.
ducted himself with any intemperance, although the
citation set forth—" Sach conduct being indecent sad
unbecoming, and 'Overtire of the law, civil and so!
clesiettical, of this realm."
This was a bread question, however, and of be.
penance to all Vestries and Clergymen throughout
the kingdom, claiming as au absolute right to preside
at Vestry Meetings; that right to be soforced by
ecclesiastical censures, in the nature of a criminal
proceeding against the parties resisting, or denying
its authority. The Learned Adcocat• contended
there was no authority for any such absolute .right ;
but that it should be left to be settled as a matter of
courtesy and committee by the majority of pa.
rishioners. The law had espressly provided, in the
absence of the Clergyman, that the parishioners
:should proceed to elect one of themselves to take
the Chair; for that the parishioners who attended
were all on an equal footin;. In support of this
doceriiie, he cited the case of Strange v. Reynolds,
wherein Lord Hardwick' had concurred, that the
Clergyman bed no right to preside, but as chosen by
the Ire I 'shiner's.
Dr. I.IIIIIINGTO‘ followed on the stole side. 113
observed it was incumbent on the Rector to show,
fir=t, that he had that absolute right: secondly, that
to interrupt or prevent his exercising it was • eel.
mini offence : and lastly, that it was • matter of ec.
clesinstical jurisdiction. In Beret's &desist:iced
Lew this wes friend to he a mere dictum of the
author, and not grounded upon any express decision.
The Act of Parliament for the more orderly conduct
of Vestry Meeting., gave a power to elect one of
the inhabitants; that Act, however, excepted the
City of London as to its provisions, and, therefore,
was not in point, hot as it might he referred to by
nay of analo::y. lie contended Dr. Wilson had
mistaken lig remedy against Mr. M•B-4 for an act
done in the most poscrahle manner. Had it been a•
act n( [hauling or flattop. towards the Clergi man
on such occasion, then °illy would the jurisdiction
of this Court hare legally applied. the tight of 0 •
Clergj man, he contended, was merely toe right of
any ',own chosen b) a na.joeity which gave him the
right only •f a casting vote.
Dr. l'insamioas, for the Ilea. Dr. Wilson, up-
pealed to dm Court, what tb•consommounts would be
its this country if Or Clergymen ores to be thsstaltrbe
as., from his being of right and presidencya •
bead of the parish? This would be so
.ei him
of those tractile's' from which all rettular.lty sun l
or-
der ohs., g... sus the settle*: end sat y
President on all such n.n the very eeral
Rector, he was the g Director of the
miliawissirs zt.w i rtd.f
parishioners. The Learned osact.•d by the
Barna, and Priding's,
codsod dignity,l h i 1.411: :lett* sc nil e"i:lllt•hiphmli: his
tabnant rs
italho; doctrine,mh a:latretre of 1

seems to sit as Presideet, the result wood be, be
%raid eithdrsw himself altogether from attending
such meetings.
1)r. Jesse Anises followed en lies urn. side.
Sir Jour. NICHOLL nMerved, as this was s geml-
ike of 'Pry general importance, ho stonld take
tin.. to deliberate hefer• giving judgment. 'f be gees.
lion appeared to hays been brooght here merely for
the purpose of trying the right, and ha hoped it
would continue to bocondarted In an amicable man.
vier. Ile should give his decision in the coarse of
Ulu wilt Term.