LORD LYNDHLIRST.—His Lordship, on Tuesday, was sworn in as Chief
Baron of the Exchequer.
MR. ARNOLD'S PETITION V. THE PATENT THEATRES.—This inquiry was resumed on Tuesday. The counsel for the petitioner closed their case, and that of the Patent Theatres was opened by Mr. Harrison. The inquiry is now adjourned to Monday, and it is expected that it will ter- minate on Tuesday. No new arguments were advanced by the peti- tioner's counsel. The Patentees have advanced but a very little way, and their arguments are, for the most part, such as were anticipated by the other side ; but we forbear to detail them until we can give a complete view of the case. In one part of his argument, Mr. Harrison was con- tending that the prerogative of the Crown extended to all subjects con- nected with public morals. The Lord Chancellor instantly observed, the argument went too far : " What," said his Lordship, " is there more important to public morals than the conduct of the press ? and yet it is not assumed to be controlled by the authority of the Crown."
PIRACY OF Piunrs.—Some time ago, a jury gave a verdict, negativing an alleged right in engravers to take any number of impressions from plates which they were employed to engrave, without the leave of their employers. The Court, at the same, time, gave permission to the as- signees of the defendant Heath, the engraver, to move to set aside the verdict against them, on the ground that this was not a piracy under the terms of the act for preventing the piracy of prints. On Monday, the Court decided in favour of the assignees ; observing, that the taking of impressions from a plate engraved by order of the proprietor of the design, was not a piracy; if taken by the engraver without the consent of his employer, it was a breach of trust—a fraud, but not a piracy. The -assignees, therefore, retain possession of the prints. It remains for the Count of Chancery to determine whether the injunction which now re- strains the sale of them shall continne—whether in fact, though origi- sway acquired by wrong, persons claiming under the wrong-doer may Wrofit by them. (King's Bench, Jan. 17, Murray v. Heath,) CURIOUS. LEGAL NADETY.—TWO. illeg4.1HlateR SODS Of a lady named Cooper, being about to proceed to Dantzic, made their wills. The eldest gave.to his mother an annuity of 100/., and the residue of hitt property. to, his brother; but in case of his death, the whole was to be- come her property. He appointed his mother executrix,. The younger
brother also gave an annuity of 1004 to his mother, and made his bro. ther residuary legatee ; appointing him the sole executor. In the course of the voyage, the younger brother being taken ill, was landed at ;El-
sinore, where he remained till the return of the vessel, when he re-em., barked with the intention of proceeding to England. There have been
no subsequent tidings either of the ship or of crew. The Crown claims the property of the younger brother as undisposed of, whilst the mother claims it as the residuary legatee of the elder brother. The question is,
which brother survived.? It appears likely that this question—which
should be at once set at rest, on moral grounds, in favour of the mother —is to be decided by a reference to the driest quibbling. The learned counsel for the lady seems to have been compelled to argue, that the elder brother was stronger than the younger, who had been sick ; and therefore it must be presumed, on the authority of the similar case of
General Standwich and his daughter, that he survived ! The Court granted a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be granted, directing the King's Proctor to join in an issue to try the question which of the brothers survived. (King's Bench, Jan. 20. Esparto Cooper.) NEW JURISDICTION.—The Master of the Rolls was called upon, for the first time under an Act of Parliament passed in the present reign, to appoint a new trustee of a marriage settlement, instead of one who, having become bankrupt, had gone out of the country beyond the juris- diction of the Court. The settlement had only provided for the election of a new trustee in case of the death or refusal to act of the trustees for the time being. (Rolls Court, Jan. 21. Re Smith.) "DAY AND MARTIN'S" Br.acxixc.—The Vice-Chancellor granted an injunction to restrain Binning, a printer, from printing labels similar to those used by the firm of Day and Martin. For the words " manufac. tined by Day and Martin," were substituted the words " equal to Day and Martin's ;" but the words " equal to" were printed in such small characters as to be scarcely observable, The Vice-Chancellor having in. spected the defendant's labels, thought them so palpable an imposition, that he instantly granted the application. (Vice-Chancellor's Court, Jan. 21. Day v. Binning.) COURT or SEssrosr.—In consequence of the resignation of Sir Walter Scott and Sir Robert Dundas, there are now two vacancies in the office of Principal Clerk of Session ; which, according to the •13th section of the Act 1 Will. IV., c. G9, are "not to be supplied." We understand that a consultation of the whole Judges took place last Wednesday, as to what regulations could be made for " duly ap. portioning the duty amongst the remaining clerks," as required by the act. Owing, however, to the great ambiguity of the clause, their Lordships held that no permanent regulations can be framed ; that in the mean time, the offices or departments of the two Principal Clerks, who have resigned, should lie continued, as was formerly done where vacancies, which fell to be supplied by the Crown, happened to occur; and that, until some explanation he obtained from Parliament, the as., sistance of one of the three Principal Clerks connected with the Second Division of the Court should be required in the First Division, where both the resignations have taken place.—EdinGur.oh Weekly Journal.
[We hope the " ambiguity" of Parliament is not, in this case, destined to be illustrated by a restoration of the abolished office.]
Previous page
