The New York herald., 1845-10-16

and Swift, the Court of Chancery interferad On ,b
sr1un' p .e Ilgnt OF property as literary productions
vent the publication by injunction was exercsed-aIso
in the case of Lady Percival, when the publication OF
certain private letters was threatened the Court
ered on the ground of chatle interest and not on the
ground that they we're literary productions intended for
in the the csse Of y p properly v the letters
lady filed her bill against publication OF letters d,
apryate and confidential character the publication OF
whch tended to disgrace her in the opinion of the pub
M put 10 both cases the Court proceeded on the
oil the violation OF the right of property in the Irish
case referred to BY the counsel bill was filed by Lad,
Tyrell who mad humber of letters written TO her and
Wncn, upon returning from her residence in Dnb-
in, she neglected to remove with her. which lev.
,ers came INTO the possession of one Duncan this
lady died IN the country, and after her death the
ueehdana duncan, advertised the publication OF
mem. Inc executr,x OF Lady Tyrrell filed bill to pre-
vent the publication of them on the ground that tho ry
OF property IN the letters existed her as the execIix
Q; tns deceased lady, and the defendant had right to
give them to the world The Lord Chancellor of Ireland
granted an injunction to restrain the qualifications In Thai
case me letters were not intended for publication and
the Dill was led not the ground COPYRIGHT but on
the ground of chafte in the letters themseivss
ana ot course that title, which onged TO the testatrx
70 ne execu,rx and on that ground the Lord
ohaneeIor Ih'efposed to prevent the publication And
mere may advert TO tue Wetmore VS. scoy in
case the Court dissolved the injunction restraining the
pubcaton OF the letters of Wetmore hut what wer tbs
claims set mp for the Interference of tue Court of Chan
cery. Tne bill proceeded on the grou nd Tint the nmh
ca.on o. thsse letters irom Wetmore would be viola
ton OF trust and confidence; that trust and confidence
which the writer OF letters reposes in the person
TO, that they would not DC publishe The bill did ~
claim the right OF property In the letters as chattes h
proceeded on gronni nat their publication was chi
culaed tc wound the feelings Of the complainant ao.
the Court asked to interfere on that ground Al,
Wetmore did mol claim TO be the OF the letters
but merely that they go, into the hands of the
Tor surreptous purposes; and that Mitchell had parte
with them for the purpose ofhaviug them published Ia
mat case had occasion to examine the jurisdiction ot
nc ourt OF Chancery and to the conc fusion thar
inns court could not take notice OF that a ground TO
nterlere or grant relief examined all the English
.ases IN relation TO the publication OF letters and
" ne conclusion, that only the ground of propoit,
~ ohses ms Court could interfere and not on the
pouu at he publication would be hurtul TO the feel
Ings oi tne complainant; ard differ with Judge Stor,
~. h e & Sou.' n,erieiing on this latter ground found
Una. ~. e .out o. chanceIy in England never intcrfereo
on that principle and Judge Story seemed to incline Il
that opinon in the adjudicating OF case bclora him
subsequent TO the one he had before him I, .laon g.
the e OF Washington If that is the p1inc,nla M :,
which the Court OF Chancery nterfere ,benf, a,
uly bear out the right OF Mr. Hoyt TO call for ma Co
TO interfere; but seems to cessarv ,a ny, ~
case on that ground The bill in this case nrocs M
tne ground Of right Of property three letters and
Pecsi right OF property in other letters so that The
now presented steers clear Of the question decided In The
case OF Wetmorevs Scovi and the iniunction ma he
etained IN the one case whereas the other II might e
dseived Now Considering the right of Hoyt 10 6e mis-
VA Esisuen oonsidsrabis portion si these letters