Court Of Chancery, Friday...
The Times, 1824-12-11T00:00:00

LAW AkPORT. Ir. AJrEPYS was heard in continuation of the argument of yester- day on behalf of the defendant, against the motion for idjunetion to restrain him frorn entering up judgment on the warrant of attorney. aThe pleniings were brought to a sudden conclusion by the adoption of a proposition made by AIr. SliAWR.OLL on behalfoaf the plaintitt namelr, to pay 4,8001., thoe amount of l ord Grosvenor's claihi, into, court, to ebtic the decision of the Lord Chancellor. Sorne complaint was mstade of the lengbt of the plainttifs bill, upon dir. CooPER, who had drawvn the bill, justified what he had done on the ground of the, necesasit which compelled him, within a very limited space of time, to embody a large quantity of evidence, with- out any opportunity for exercising his discrimination. The learned coansel then transtersed the reproach which had attached itself to his long bilt to the pleadings of common law courts, between which and his own an invidious contrast, as it appeared, liad been made. For his own part, he disowned any faith in the alleged perspieuity dnd brevity of common law proceedings. It was not generally considered that the questions of equity juirisdiction were more intricate and com- plex in their nature otherwise he verily believed the pleadings at conmmon law would be found, by just compar.son more dliffuse than those in equity. Be had seen a declaration in the possession of' a learned friend of his, which consisted of 400 closely writteo pages, which was longer than any Chancery-bill he had ever seen. The LoanD CHANCELLOR concurred with some of the counsel in bearing testimonv to the geierally hoaisorable practice of Mlr. Cooper. Hiis Lordship very cordially concurred in ir. Cooper's observations upon the differentinodes of practice, his Lordship giv- ing a decided preference in most instances where both jurisdictionts were available to thp practice in equitv. Here a plaintiTf was re- quired to let the defendant know the whole of his case, and rel- procally the plaintifi obtained previous knowledge of the defendant's; whereas in common law pleadings, the paries did not xknow, half the timaes, wha?t those pleadings were. It wzell behoved th1ose, there- fore, who busied themselves in finding out the defects of his Court, to look at home, and not meddle with matters of which they were wrholly ignorant. ABERE ETErY Y. THlE LANCET. The SoLIcIToRnG.(9guAL,pursuant to notice given, wvasabout to move tbr an injunction to restrain the defendants from publish- ing thc lectures of his highlytalentod friend, which the Laiicet professed to publish verbatim, as delivered by the accomplished lec- turer. AMr. IJORNE hoped that the Court would consent to a postpone. menDt as his client, wbo was most nnxious for a full examination of the question--a question involving some of the most serious points in the rights of authors and publisbers-had only been served the day before yesterday with notice. The SOaLICITT OGEENERAL said,that he would have been entitledl to take the injunceion er-parte, and this was the treatmerst whieh he- had got by condescending to give notice of his motion. The subject was ofthe most pressing nature, because another number would ap- pear to.nmorrow If it were not argued to-day. ALr. H ORNE said, that it was strange for a gentleman of Dr. Aber- nethy'5 consequence to be afraid of a Laaicet, especially as he had suf- er nine previous puulications withiout making any application to thd Courn At all events, there could be no grcat additional lharm done by the publication of another nuvsber, whaich was now actual- ly In the press, and of which it -night be very safely predicted Dccies repetita plaeebit." The LORD CUSM.CELLOBO said, that he could not hean this mo- tion to-day, without subjecting a great many, otlier suitors to bleed- ing, whose eases stood for this.morning. How did it happen that the notice of motiob had been so long delayed ? The SOLICITOnR( E.XERAT. said, that lie would have made the motion yester(lay, but for the pressing nature of the case in which Lord Grosvenor was concerned, ant which ihivolved matter of oblo- quy against his Lordshwip and his agents. The l.Oun CStANCEu.on said, t iet the publication so much dreaded would appear to-mnorrow, and elhe injnction was sought to- day, at the close of which the argumnent ught not be concluded. He would propose a *idldle method. If the publishers would undertake to put(ut no mnore of the lectures for the present, excepting the pub- lcation of to.-norrow, which was now probably in the press, he would undertake to put ofE the mnotion till the 4th seal. Ir. HORaF readily accepted his Lordship's oroposal not to pub- lish any more of the lectures. The SoLcCT011-GIguERAT. complained of being pat in a worre situation than that ir, which he would otherwise have stood, by his civility in giving notice of rmotion. The case ought to be heard on AfMbnday or Ttesday at farthest. He,however,concurred in his Lord- ship's arrangement. The l,ORD CIIANCELLOR said, " Then it is understood that there must be no furthler publication, except for to.morrow's bleed- ing. The question, as I understand it, is, whether a party attend- ing lectures in any branch of philosophy or learsing for his own in- formation, is at liberty to publish those lectures for his own ad- vantage." The SOLIC{TOR-(GNEN AL..-Yes,myLord, that is the quest-oi. The LORD CsrANcELLoa.-If SO, I shaQl make short workof that question. Mir. HonsE denied that this was the question. The Court coald not decide without heAring. The SOLIcITOR.CGENERAL was oenlvinced that his Lordship's minti had caught the whole point in litigation. The LoaD CIZAINCELLOR said, that he had heard of different kinds of lectures ; but if he understood the rnatter rightly, the lec- ture he would have to read would be a memorable one. Air. HoRnE again denied that the propositionaadvanced to the ob- servation of the Court was the question at issue. TheSOLteCToR-ENgERAL said that was the question, andT added " Your Lordship never hears, but you decide ; your Lord- ship anticipates: you 'are deriding the question to-day; there is notning now before you to be argue'i." c,,s le understand that proccedings for a libel have been conm- menced against the editor of 7VU Lanect by Alr. Tyrreli, the sur- geon of St. Thomas's Hospital. aLA M?ORE V. o-LAsrOseGAseSHIRE CANAL.. T'ae LORD CHANCELLOR gave his opinion that the parties would do well to agree to put soae case in issue at law, and abide by that decision oftheir legal rights. His Lordship was induced by the counsel to promise that he would furnish the outline of a case Proper for that purpose. TN RE THE PIcCXErtIDGE CHARTY. The bill was dismissed. I| ' COAUT (F CHIANCERY. FR1DAV. ITA-. lfj I-- _ WILLOUGGHIy V. rAfRY. nnnqvxv^D