THE LAW. COURT OF CHANCERY. COOPER V. REILLY —This was

an appeal motion from a decision of the Vice Chancellor, Sir E. Tomline having contracted debts to a considerable amount assigned to the defendant an annuity of 5001., which he receives as assistant Par-

liamentary Counsel, in trust, to apply the proceeds of the annuity in payment of his debts. The defendant having refused to accept the trust, the plaintiff filed his bill to have a receiver of the annuity, appointed by the Court for the benefit of the creditors. The application was opposed on the behalf of Sir E. Tomline; and on the grounds that the annuity being a remuneration for services rendered to the public, and being necessary to enable Sir K. Tomline to perform these ser- vices, could not be the subject of an assignment ; and that even if a receiver should be appointed the appointment would be nugatory, as it would be at any time in the discretion of the Lords of the Treasury to withhold the annuity, to the payment of which they could riot be compelled by any power which the receiver could possess under the authority of this Court. The negative of these proposi- tions was maintained in the reply ; and it was moreover insisted, that whatever valise the arguments for the defence contained in themselves, they could not be received from the lips of Sir E. Tomline, who had himself made the assignment which he now endeavoured to invalidate. The Lord Chancellor thought the case important, and took time to consider his Judgment. (Nov. 11.) VICE CHANCELLOR'S COME.

LONGMAN AND CO. V. Dove AND Tysosi.—The plaintiffs are the celebrated booksellers of Paternoster Row ; Mr. Dove is the well-known printer. An in- junction had been obtained by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from pub- lishing Lindley Murray's English Grammar, with the alterations and i mprove ments made in it by the plaintiffs. The first edition of the grammar was published in 1795, and the work had gone through forty-three editions. The original copy- right has expired by lapse of time. But of the seventh edition, published in August 1801, with alterations, additions, and improvements, the copyright existed in the plaintiffs up to the month of August 1829. Besides, as all the subsequent edi- tions had been published with alterations and improvements by the plaintiffs, their copyright still existed in these later editions. Mr. Dove had invaded this right by publishing a copy of the plaintiffs' edition; whereupon the plaintiffs applied to this Court, and obtained an injunction in April 1829. The defendants then, abandoning the former publication, put forth another work, which was still a copy, (though of a more colourable nature) of the plaintiffs' book. The learned Counsel put in two books, and pointed out various passages which he contended had been transferred to the work of the defendants from that which was the pro- perty of the plaintiffs. The present motion was, in form, that the defendants be committed for the breach of the injunction.

The Solicitor-General appeared for Tyson, and read an affidavit made by that gentleman, in which he deposed, that after the injunction had been obtained, Mr. Dove sent him a copy of the first edition of Murray's Grammar, and directed him to write a grammar on that plan, carefully avoiding all the alterations and im- provements which Messrs. Longman had made or professed to make in the sub- sequent editions. Mr. Tyson further deposed, that he had complied with this direction, and left out nearly all the passages claimed by the plaintiffs in the bill which they had filed for the injunction. The learned Counsel contended that no more than a fair and legitimate use of the plaintiff? work had been made by the defendants.

The Vice-Chancellor thought, that Messrs. Longman had some ground for making the present motion ; but that the defendants had evinced a respect for the injunction of the Court ; and his Honour therefore made no order. (Nov. 10.)

THE BARON DE BERENGER V. Hammers—In this case the plaintiff had filed a bill, praying for an account, and that the partnership between him and the de- fendant may be dissolved. The subject of the partnership is a patent waterproof gun. In support of the bill, it was said that there existed between the parties an animosity which it was impossible to subdue, and that as the business could not be conducted under such circumstances, the partnership ought to be dissolved, as had been already done by this Court in similar cases. The prayer of the bill was opposed, on the ground that the Baron de Berenger had induced the defendant to advance a very considerable sum for the working of the patent, and that he only wished to put an end to the contract because he found that he could not induce the defendant to advance any more money. The Vice-Chancellor said, that the doctrine laid down by Lord Eldon in "'Waters v. Taylor," was, that where irreconcileable animosity existed between parties, the partnership ought to be dissolved. That such a feeling existed here was beyond all doubt, and his Honour therefore decreed, that the partnership should be dissolved, an account taken between the parties, and the patent sold. (Nov. 13.)

ROLLS COURT, WESTMINSTER.

WAGSTAFF V. Bireae.—The details of the present discussion were no further interesting, than as they disclosed the fact, that the original bill in the suit had been filed in 1792, for the purpose of carrying into effect the trusts of a will. Many years ago, a decree was pronounced, and four bills of revivor have been filed since that time. (Nov. 9.)

ATTENDANCE OF Cousset.—The Vice-Chancellor on Monday ordered the

Registrar to strike out all the causes in which counsel did not appear. Mr. Horne remonstrated with his Honour upon this determination. The Vice-Chancellor however expressed his resolution to persevere in the course which he had adopted, and not to restore any cause to the paper unless the most satisfactory reason should be given for the absence of counsel.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. SITTINGS IN BANCO.

Mere IIE LI, V. BARI NG.—TII is action, which has excited so much anxiety amongst the merchants of London, was 'tried last week at Guildhall, before Lord Tenter- den and a Special Jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff. The action was upon a bill of exchange for 500/. drawn at Charlestown in America, by Messrs. Cluff and Co. on Messrs. Crowther and Co. of Liverpool, payable in London at sixty days, to the order of Messrs. Le Roi Mayard and Co. of New York, and by them indorsed to the plaintiffs. It was presented at the house of the drawees in Liverpool, for acceptance, and refused, and was protested at Liverpool for the non-acceptance. It was then forwarded to London, and accepted by the defend- ants in these words—" accepted under protest for the honour of Messrs. Le Roi Mayard and Co. and will be paid on their account if regularly protested and re. fused when due." The bill became due on the 1st of November, and was pre- sented for payment not in London, but at the domicile of the persons on whom it was drawn at Liverpool, and there it was protested for non-payment. Afterwards, on the 3rd of November, it came to London, and was presented to the defendants; but they, acting according to the custom of merchants, refused to pay it, on the ground that it ought to have been protested in London, that being the place at which it was payable. Lord Tenterden having at the trial told the Jury (which was composed of eminent London merchants) that in point of law the house of the drawee at Liverpool was the proper place for presenting the bill for payment, according to the terms of the acceptance for honour, the Jury, with some reluct- ance, found for the plaintiff. All the witnesses for the plaintiff (London mer- chants, bankers, and notaries) deposed at the trial, that it was the invariable and universal practice, where a bill was payable in London, to protest it at that place

for non-payment. Lord Tenterden qualified the effect of the evidence, with a proviso that the holder lived in London. His Lordship continued to entertain the same opinion which he expressed at the trial ; and the other Judges concurred in the opinion of his Lordship. The rule for a new trial, which Mr. Gurney moved for, was therefore refused. (Nov. 9.) ROGERS V. TYLER, CLERK. —This action had been brought to try whether there bad existed from time immemorial a Select Vestry in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields. The verdict of the Jury negatived the existence of the Select Ves- try. A conditional rule for a new trial was to-day moved for and granted. The Attorney-General said, that the decision of the Jury had caused great confusion in the parish, as it had taken from the Select Vestry the power of levying rates, and the Churchwardens were not allowed to make the levy with- out the concurrence of the other authorities. Under the Police Act the parish had been called on to pay a large sum to defray the expense of watching the streets and clothing the officers ; and as the rates could not be levied and the Churchwardens were obliged by the act to pay the money, they had been forced to advance it out of their own pockets. (Nov. 9.) SAtemeuity v. CRAMP AND CRoWTHEIL—In this case, which we reported very lately, a new trial was moved for ; but the Court refused the motion, on the ground that the case had been left to the Jury on the respective credibility of the two witnesses Hunt and Avan ; ;in I that the Jury, who were the best judges of the matter, disbelieved the testimony of Mr. Hunt, and gave credit to that of the other witness.

Imovie V. Ammen.—This was the action about the necklaces which we re- ported two weeks ago, and which appeared then so very remarkable a specimen of conduct on the part of the lady who is the defendant. To-day, Mr. Platt moved for a new trial, on the ground that the lady had previously sold to the plaintiff a dressingmase for 201., which he had not paid. This sum she proposed to deduct from the price of the necklace ; but the plaintiff refused to allow her to do so, and it was in consequence of this refusal that she detained the necklace as already reported. The action having been suspended, was the consequence of surprise. These facts were all stated on affidavit ; and the Court granted a con- ditional rule for a new trial. (Nov. 11.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

MURRAY V. WALKER AND OTHERS.—This was an action of false imprisonment, libel, and trover, in which 810/. damages had been given, in the trial which took place at Guildhall a few days ago. Mr. Sergeant Cross Moved the Court to- day for a new trial, on the ground that the defendants bad had probable cause for their conduct in arresting the plaintiff, seizing his trunks, and publishing a notice throughout the country, cautioning all persons not to give him credit on their account. The Court took time to consider of the applicatioe ; but recom- mended the parties to agree amongst themselves upon anamount of compensation less than had been awarded by the Jury. (Nov. 9.)

KEMISLE v. FARREN.—On Tuesday last, Mr. Sergeant Spankie applied to the Court to stay the proceedings in this cause. The plaintiff had irregularly shelled judgment, and was about to issue execution, notwishstanding the bill of excep- tions (which was tendered on the trial) had not been signed by the judge ; and this circumstance had arisen from the delay of the plaintiff, the copy submitted for the approval of his counsel having been detained nearly four months. The Court instantly granted the rule nisi ; and on Friday it was made abseil, re,—all proceedings on the part of the plaintiff being stayed till next Monday week.

LIIIEL. SANDERS v. 'Mtu.s.—The defendant is the proprietor of the Bristul Gazette; and the subject of the action was an alleged libel published in that paper in the shape of a report of a trial which had taken place at the preceding Gloucester Assizes, and in which Mr. Sanders was defendant, and Lord de Clifford the plaintiff. The report of the trial represented the character and conduct of Mr. Sanders in an extremely unfavourable light ; and he accordingly commenced an action against Mr. Mills, and obtained a verdict with 50/. damages. Mr. Ser- geant Ludlow now moved the Court that the verdict be set aside, and a new trial granted. The nature of the arguments by which the learned Sergeant supported his motion at great length, will be evident from the Judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Mr. Baron (Jarrow to the following effect: That the verdict ought not to he disturbed: that the publication of fair and imp, tial reports of the proceedings of courts of justice was a most essential service to the public : that the present publication was not of that character, as no man could read it without seeing on the face of it that it was an unfair report, ire it purported to be the statement of the plaintiff's counsel and therefore an exparte statement ; whilst the report contained only one or two important observations of Mr. Sanders' counsel, and only such parts of the Judge's charge is pressed upon Mr. San- ders' feelings. The Court therefore unanimously thought the report on the face of it unfair and partial, and refused the application for setting the vmdiet aside.

COMPETENcl To nECOME BAIL.—The Lord Chief Justice informed the Court on Wednesday, that the Judges had agreed that none but housekeepers or free- holders were competent to become bail.

Col7RT op EXCHEQUER.

TRIMMER, CLERK V. LORI) Hi serixerowem—This action was tried in Trinity term last, and the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; damages 20004, being the full amount laid in the declaration. It will be recollected that the action was brought to recover compensation for the injury which the plaintiff suffered from a variety of disgusting annoyances committed in the immediate neighbourhood of his house by the noble defendant. The action also included sonic libellous communications made by Lord Huntingtower concerning the Reverend plaintiff; and the consequence of Lord Huntingtower's conduct was, that the children who had been placed for education at Mr. Trimmer's boarding,-school were taken away by their friends. Mr. Claike now moved the Court for a rule on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had. The motion rested on two grounds,—that the damages were ex- cessive; and that the Lord Chief Baron had wrongly admitted a letter in evidence. After hearing a long speech from Mr. Clarke, Mr. Baron Carrow observed, that the scene created by Lord Huntingtower in the neighbourhood of Mr. Trimmer's house was so brutal and disgusting, that no decent family could come to reside within view of it. The Lord Chief Baron, who presided at the trial, observed on the present motion, that if the damages had been laid at 50001., the Jury would have given the whole amount laid in the declaration. The Court finally agreed to grant a conditional rule; and intimated, that if it should be made ab- solute, it would be accompanied with leave to the plaintiff to enlarge the amount of damages laid in his declaration.

CONSISTORY COURT,

BRANDON V. BRANDON.—In this case, which was a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, the proctor for Lord Brandon declared on Tuesday, that his Lordship intended to proceed no further in this suit against Lady Brandon. Dr. Lushington observed that his Lordship could retire from the suit only on pay- meet of costa,