The National Register. — London, England, 1821-02-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. IC The Under Sheriff of NVarwickshire returned that he had nut levied a cettam li." in consegnotice of hat lop received a 'encr from the Solicitor, re q uesting that he woof,: take no steps .14 the Mailer was wider consitle raiont. r. Baron (Jarrow desired it to he understood. that the Sheriffs were not at liberty to make such trine s dilations ()Intreatinits were also made on the want of reCISIOII with which reetiAiliza.ices were taken, iti consequence of. iv hien the (Stlettlf could not 11(111 the party th levy the hue, and toe Li utler Saeritls were di rected to intimate to clerks:of magistrates, especially those acting f r large towns, that more precision was expecte I. 'Fite Lord Chancellor will hear re-hearings and a p. and :ugh C SUM'S. plea'', demurrers, vxrepll4lll.. A nti tamer directions acare set &MVO before nun. al tettiaiely, (viceeptost Seal Days, and such days as his Lordship is occupied in the Hallow of Lords' Every Joy (ruin %Voila-811.1, Fetiruar,, 21, to %%edoeiday, April 4, both bail:pave. Feist Seal-I . ll , •sifity. Feb. 20. Mecum' Seal—Titursd.ty, itu-rh 8, Seal—l'iltinida), Mortli 22. F.fito tit Soul—Thursday, Apr.l3. Pei Seals, B.:c. Ikelore the Vice Chancellor, after Turin, 1821 : First Se:O.—Tuesday, February 20. —Mations I from Welliwyday, F,ll. 21, to fue•ility, Nlarcit —Causes. Seroad March B.—Motious„ further Direeti .... s and Causes, Friday, March 9, to Wednesday, March Yl. . _ . ^ T Thttd Sral—ThursdoV. %larch gt Nem, De murrer', l'Areptiulo, Further Dio ect tons and C..iii"e.,Erstlay Alarrtt V 3, to %Vv.:H.141.a%, Alit II .1. Fourth SealTltorml4). April b.—Motions. Friday, Apr il MONDAY, ?ED. l'J. . •. HALL (ol !Lanett, N6its.) V. royals and others. Itlr. Han nutted for a i injunction to restrain the defendants fr pirating and using the invention of tile plaintiff (who is partner in the house of G. F. Urling and Co. in the Strand), for improving thread or yarn, in infringement of the patent he had obtained for the exclusive use of that ;mention. Tlie letters patent were obtained in November, 1817 ; and they stated that the 41IfjeCt of the improvement was to remove the proltcting fibres from curry description of thread or yarn, and ren der it stronger, smoother, and finer. Tile plaintiff had expended in experiment, anterior to the completion tat his invention, boon'. and upwards; and, frill the of tit-• patent till the present time ; hail been in JJJ Irs• ll•SeW3llt and use of the invention, m itli the exception that. for swim time past, the defendant had been secret:y it, will:qt. if they ennui do saf e ty, it n at very rattail they would, fur the itlanires lion pion obtained a eeleliriiy of • very distinguished k nit aitiontua those who were fanciers of free nit. er 10e name of Uthini'ineu ittritrovt.d lace.' it was a coi t i...ct. of very great profit to the plaintif f , and his loithinip taught form some idea of its excellence, as her late inajeszy had granted to Urlinft and Co. Iwranission to supply her exclusively with lace. her mtjesty being scow judge of *twenties's of tru_. kuud. 'fill E SPIA4IIIIIIIICIII. [o4 , ther with oilier citcutitsimie , s whicti It d ati en it Melded superiority tat " Urling's pace," had induced the attempt of the defendants to infringe upon the ptaintiff's patent. The Plaintiff WJS 1101 able for some time, to bring it home to the defendants; but in the course of the present month of Feria fry, in consequence of his suspicions, he placed a ladder at .night, against a window of the tlefentlanta' manufactory, and them very clearly saw the defendants carryilia on the process ol improvement in vented by was collfirilivcl by limn other per sons, and certainly the very itsidnigin mode of carrying on the work was strung es deuce at entice:lntent, and an intention of pirating the invention. His lordship having examined several specimens of the lace thread Of which it was manufactured, grained the injunction. COURT . OF EXCHEQUER. Radical qffee.—The tiing v. H. Mod. Mr. Walton opened the pleadings. Re said the in• formation was filed I , y the Attorney General to feCtAer two ft, ;whirs of tonl. each front the defend.int, one for making an imitation of coffee for sale. and the other for hat 1,1 sold the saute. The Solicitor (.literal stated the case, and then calk(' his witnesses. Samuel Linsicad stated, that he is an officer of Ex cise, mid in the month of February last he went to the defendant's inanufseinry, 97, Broadway, Surrey, and asked to buy tan s. of breakfast itsits,'„,• ; he saw the futidatit's son, wit , said they did nut sell less than Valb.--lie then remain that quantity, lor which he raid ad. per lb. The deletidatit's soli told hint it was better than coffee—that they were selloot a great deal of it, and had sent a great Oral of it to Liverpool. The tt nurse went away, awl r, turned with other elects, officers, one of whom, W. E ast , keisti t all the powder that was manufactured, or drat was in the pro- Cess of manufacturing. When 'the n%cers came to seise, and told the de fendant their business, he said, if they did loot setae immediately, he would kick them Pull. al his cu m .caami l iation by Mr. Hill, he said, neither defendant nor his soil called the powder coffee, tier was there the least concealment. rho witness asked for breakfast oowter. W. East, surveyor of excise. ;mord the facts of the Plante, as staled by the hist witness, Mi. Hubert stated, 'Oat lie o a r:eater to cotter. and acesi-tom. il to ea.. m in e coffee, mod ail its tstligttlfCi. COCIIIT.II mos. pie wet/ tort of the !powder se , aer, which had been given hint for nomination I said, t , r e s s i oblell ci•fiee in many ilartteal:O., /Mil if one-ltatitl, rrah collie were milted wilt three-foto:NM the Lowder, 1.. wMd l ihrt, by inikinit it the usual way. and driok •bi it, by mile to doeuver the 4iiier‘4lo/4twreo It sod real coffee s but iltuald fur %bat purpose Wt. ,~ ,TIONAL REGISTER chemical tests. I.l , ttig aNketl the i.tltie tti powder, lie sai•l rye varied in price last year from 341. 461. per quarter; bin taking it st 403. the defendant's puwdrr WOUiti 1101 IIC %% °nil 2ti. per in returti 01 the se:z•tre and cootie filiation Mr want of claim was read atul put in as evuieticv, wtricit closed he Fase fin the crown, 111 r. Hill addressed the Jury for the defendant. He said, that had but the Jury heard something of this matter unit of court, they must be surprised to hear that airy mail should be tirouaht into coon kit having made a ikowticr, not as all 11111114110110( coffee, but which auxin he used Ill.telll of culler—flat ma Mall should be al. lowed to make his breakfast of any Ming like coffee, unless he hall that expeosive article. it was very notch the same as if it wer,r sottaiii t r recover a penalty from a clan WI - .0 could um :Aril to drink wine, ticeatise he preAtitted to regale himself with turner. The statute Wit made lecatise coll,-e.t'ealer. were in tire habit of mixing iniier articles whit coff.e, and thus defratidina toe 'eremite and the politic, but in ins case there was no deception, the :Miele was -OM tor what it really was, and it would be 111011Stroos to say in ally country west of Russia or 'Turkey, that a poor wall IlhOlattl 10 without his breakfast, rather that, mike it of a wholesome be venue produced trum grain 01 our Own production, thp eimmitiptiou of which tended to relieve out agriculture. wiiich it was known, was in a state of great distress.... Tile learned gentleman called the defendant's ion, T. hunt, who proved that his his father never called the breakfast powder coffee, and that he desired the witness never to call it so, On his cross-eximiration by the Solicitor General, he said his father had nut given him any reasan for de siring him not to call the powder colter, but he never dia call it sit. No other witnesses were called on the part of the defendant. The Attorney General said, the law on the case wits so clear, that verdicts had been lonnd on it by eve, six, or seven juries, before whom similar e, minions had wen brought, without any contrary verdict tiering been found. Mr. Baron Gerrow charged the jury, that the law on the CjSC WJS clear, and IF they believed the facts, of which there could be no doubt, they would find a ve dict fur the crown. The Jury iniumulirtely fiuitul a verdict for the crown on both counts.—Pcuaitirs 2001. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. TuesnAr, FEB. 13. DAVIS, V. TAGIL. This was an action ot assansprit, arising out of the sale eerrain articles oI jewti.ery. The flelentlinit, wMI is a journeyman jeweller, dab- Win; a little on his own account,sold a variety of trinkets, ill wt. , a tieck-cliain, a seal, a ring, a watch-key, and a pair 01 ear-rings, warranting the same to he 44 verritable gold of Ophir. ' of the fineness at least in sus. per ounce. Some time after the purchase, (ready twine) , has Ing been paid h'r Ills Condo), the plrwufT learned trum a if irliti. 55110 was a jtitlg • of such matters, that he had been bamboozled. The articles were then 511111111 MA to the inspection Of a refiner, and the artist declared, that they had been I,oli,Jit at nearly twice their %aloe. Mr. Scar let& now, Seeking to recover seven pounds as the differ ence between the actual worth of the j. well, and the loosed %aloe which had been pm upon them by the de elidatit. relied upon tile warranty of gold al SO. per ounce." John Davis, son of the plaintiff, ;moved the warranty ; and et Metier was aiveti to snow that the trinkets in question were minis very little inure than half the money that had been paid tor them. Mr. D.dintan, for the defendant, contended that the. jeweller'. Vk ords—t he bils. per us.--were not to be taken as a warranty 01 . the articles, but inetely as the words of course, such as a tradesen at would naturally employ for the reco 1111 l imitation 01 his goods. Lord ChicfJustice held that the assurance of the def. nd.,nt ztntuuute . to a stwntiity , and that a trades man had no non in ditpttong of hi. wires to nwltd6e asst rtiuni amottisting to falsehood. The Jury, ny commit, Mum' for the plaintiff...— Damages 4aut. WILDMISDAT, m. 14. 11TLYkissoN s. tIOOGART. This was an ac ion for y had and reeeive4l, The defendant, who is an eminent auctioneer. put up to sale an estate belonging to a gentleman of toe name of Esttale. 'Die Coudtnum of sate were, that VU per cent. tit ;arm should 41 once be Hid upon the amount of the cost ; the rettiaMtier of the purchase money to be forth• coining within a staled wins!, at the expiration of w h ic h t h e title was 11. he root eyed. Under these cots- Jowl's, the plaudit!, t.l3i.S eVencoh purchaaed the estate. he ;laid I,MM' assieporit ; but wilco the time came for making good the title, it appearcia that Mr. Frdale had a hitt for .5001. a year upon the property, Mr. St. vellum insisted that the incumnertince should be removed; Mr Esdale ullerstl an tvisan. tit, which was olected ; Mr. Sievenrott then di-chord oh his bargain ; sod, to recover hack his deposit womb now brought his action against Mr. liutmart. Mr. Gurney, after stating that all the parties—vender, seudee, and anctiutieer—were in chancery, ruinniited, for the defendant, au isiturniality un the part of the oLo it ia, Mr. Stevenson had gisen notice that. unless by a gkrtain day the title should beatific good, ne would abanduti the contract; hot, alter givity that notice, he entered into ster.ociatii•iis :or 411 aUteulkirlit. .1 he tie gocostionr, which consulted of a proposal by Mr. FAdale to t rat stock tor the payment of illr. kLattale a annuity in the ilit11 (1 11 tif trustees, and ofa demand by Mr. Stevenson of a reduction id 11w pro ... e of the estatet.those isesuci. .1110115 certainly did 11Q1 end in any settlement ; . but the were cutting' tilt° wg"clailinl, Mr. Gin my, contended, aattlailledlo a W..Vt nt the wire of abandonment, The laird Chic! Justice did nut think that ally right. had been waved by the Stilnequent oegociation: and The Jul foutui for the . piatotiff..amannwi CRIPTE V. ROTHNALL AND ANOTHER. This was an action against the late Sheriffs of London, for the escape of a prisoner urn' mein process. Mr. Casherd, in opening the case, said that the action was only i t nit tally taken a l pinist the resliCetilble persons Who apl.edreci a3ll;f:riiilaiiis, the p.O ly interested being Mr. \lu tariWeston,hnrse-drtler,rrfLondon•wali. Weston liasiog accepted 'WU hills of exchan,te lot 23111. drawn by a persoit of the name of Alarsden, was, upon those hills, ;arrested by the holder, Mr. Copps. The Sheriff, however, instead of , holding the person of Weston, or taking from him a bailAottd, suffered him to go at large; and Mr. Cripps, being by that neglect deleilied iu obtaining his money, now brought his action. Mr. Gurney, for the defence, called Mr. Michael Wecoo and his KM, Who proved that Crinps had con. witted to withdraw the actiuts ; and that it Was in cons sequence of such consent that no bail had been taken, Tney said that the inlls m . question had merely then accepted for the acconnwsdatnin of Marsden; and that. since the allegml e.cape, Weston, the father, had been lining, and carrying on business, at the /MCC place, anti in the range wanner, as he had before bran seem. Whied to do. Mr. easberd, in reply, insisted that horse•dealers hwl more liberty of conscience than other sum and that their evidence should he received with much qualification. 'Die Chief Justice told the jury, that it they should discredit the evidence of Weston and Isis sun, then the plaintiff would be entitled to their verdict. It should be remembered, however, that Weston the elder was, and, since the CSC:Ir , had been, forthcoming; that the plaintiff might at once, if he had thought fit, have ar. rested him :I second time; and th t, consequently, nothing had been really lost but I It. I ss. the captures of the origin a l pro cess , w hi c h h a d Piled.--Vershat for !he (Went:ant. THURSDAY, lEIRUARY 1 5, CENNETT V. COLYvAR. This action was trot ht by the plaintiff, a stable. keeper, against the 800. G. Coly%ar, oth. mix Lord Milsintown, to recover 2701. for the keep of horses, at the rate of 4i. 6.1. per day. The Jury Wood a verdict for the plaintiff • . Dainagcs 2451, 0411.•••••• COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WILDNESDAY, FES. 14. IREACII OF PROMISE Or MARRiAGI, WATTS PLATT• _ Sergeant Pell stated the facts of the plaintiffts ease s which were laird% these :—The parties live at 'West Drayton. and are tit an humble line of life. In the year tut 2 the deiend an t, George plan, a farmer, inet Jeannie V. the plaintiff, at a fiance at tier nude's, who kept the six. bells, public louse, after which he visited her at the cottage of her mother, a very poor woman. She Was then about 18, and he updo 3u years of age. The mother at first wished her daughter to decline his ac., quaituatice, as she old not comatler her a suitable match for a person in such good circumstances as the deft. dam. He, however, persevered, declaring that it was his intention to marry her, and actually purchased the ring for that plupw.e. The courtahip contittutd for upwards of eight years, until the defendant, without as signing any cause, took it into his head to marry atwitter woman. After which he still attempted to continue his visits, and upon being upbraided by the plaintiff with his breach of faith towards her, he prote,ted with tears in his ryes that his misconduct had beets productive of wore 1101hippillegli to hiniaelf than to her. r Ins was the sob. stance of the case proved by the mother, sifter, and uncle of the plaintiff, Prom whom, upon cross examination it was anti:lined in be extracted that she had pe mined the defendant to take libertievof au improper kind With her. These attempts; however, totally failed, the girl's conduct appearing to have been moot 'acepti.mahle, Sergeant Vanglian addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. but called no witnesses. The Learned Judge iDallas), in his charge, oltserved s in indignant language, uputs the unmanly and cruel defence, attempted to be set up by the defendant, in endeavouring. alter imputing 10 her the poverty of her p 'rents, to prove fits own infamy in seducing her in tier inuti.er's infus e , which heirliCts had nut only but Wight hi recoil with sengatice upon his own head. The Jury then found a verdict fur the plaultill—U-w usages coin, TAYLOR to trettelfl% This was an action on the warranty of a horse. Tho plaintiff, who was an attorney, purchased a horse (ruin the defendant, whatira beery stable keeper, at Christ. Mar last, whieft-ilneletter warranted suund,•and sale to ride ur drive. ()It the Igstroljan. the plaintiff's gig, in which were himself, ins wife, awl niece, was upset by ruimitm foul of tile' Hampstead stage, owing (as Stilled by his witnesses) to his muse having become on• manageable t in consequence of which his Nile Vias flinch hurt, and the fruit broken, which put him to the expense;tgsurgeon's fell. repairs of the gig. itit.) of between ?Qt. and go:. Recalled several . witnessni In prove that the horse lit question ►has la WIC, anti unquiet in harness, and therefore he was entitled to IV. corer damages fur the breach of wurrantry. For the (lettuce several witnesses wsrr also called, swore that at the time he was sold to the plaintiff, the horse, although high-spirited and young., was perfectly . quiet and free from vice, and trial fir, 'Taylor, iii speaking of the accident, admitted that it occurred through his own fault, Alter a great deal of cunllicUng witunony haul been given on butt) silks, and Sergeent Vaughan for the plaintiff, and Sergeant Pelf, for the defendant, hail respectively aintressed the jury at coati. siderahle length, his Lordship summed up, and the jury, first Consulting, a kw minutes, returned a timlict but the defendant. Two insta»res hate recently occurred at Mitcham of children being severely burnt during the absoucw of their parents I one of silo suprrcr was right or ollte years otti, 14