The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-19 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING,

JANUARY

taco intelltatnce.

EQUITY COURTB.—JAN. 18.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
CUWfIB V. PLATT.
This was an appeal motion from a judgment of Vice-
Chucellor Wood, 111 which he held that there wan no in-
fringement on the past of the defendant of a patent granted
to Mr. Wain, of Oldham, LI 1834, for improvementa in the
self-acting cotton spinning mule. The plaintiff was assignee
of Wain 's patent, and in 1860 the defendant took out •
palest for certain other improvements in the action of the
mule, which the plaintiff alleged to be imitations of his own
patenL
The Lord Chancellor, without bearing the other side,
confirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, and said that
in his opinion both the patents represented combinations to
affect the same end, but were totally different one from
Its other. The patent of Platt was no infringement on that
lot Wain. . .

—lir. Bolt, Mr. Webster (of the common law bar), and Mr.
Drewry were for the appellant ; Mr. Grove (of the 0001111011
kw bet), Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Forbes were for the respon-
dent

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENOH.--JAN. 18.
&Wisp in 13snoo.—(Be(ora Lard Chid Judie* Cockburn,
Justices Crompton, Blackburn, and Mellor.)

HAYWOOD r. TNL METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY.
In thin cane the plaintiff was a claimant for compensation
under the Lands Clauses Act, and the case came before the
court on a question of .xete. The act provides that on a
notice of claim the warrant for a jury to assess compensa.
tics mast issue within 21 days if an offer is refused. The
applicant gave notice of his claim on the 10th June, claim-
* for structural damage mid also for loss of busiest... On
the 30th June (within 21 days) the company offered ICO!.,
701. for structural damage and 301. for loss of beldam.
Oa the same day, this offer being refused, they issued their
warrant to summon a jury. On the 2nd July, more than
21 days after the notice of claim, the company offered 1501.,
via, 1001. for stinctorsl damage and 501. for low of Maxi-
ma,. That also was declined, and the inquisition wee held,
and the jury gave 1501., viz., 501. for structural damage and
1031. for loss of Drainer —exactly the amount offered, only
reversing the proportions upon toe two heads of claims.
The plaintiff subsequently claimed the oasts of the itquiry,
under the 51st section of. the Lauds Clauses Consolidation
Act, 1845, bat the master declined to tax them,
upon an objection taken by the company under
the same section that the sum previously offered
by the company was equal in amount to the com-
pensation awarded by the jury. Mr. Beresford afterwards
moved and obtained a rule nisi to tax the applicant's costs,
on Abe ground that the company were bound by their first
offer, which was less in amount than the sum awarded by
the Puy ; that the offer which might have the effect of de.
priers( the claimant of costs must be made before the com-
pany issued their warrant to the sheriff, or at all events
before the expiration of the twenty-one days after they re.
calved the claim for compensation ; and that the jury had
awarded more upon one head of he claim than the com-
pa had offered.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., argued contrary against the rule ; Mr.
, Francis and Mr. Beresford supported A.
The court discharged the rule.
Mr. Francis asked their lordships to give the judgment so
as to allow the plaintiff to appeal to the Court of Error.
The Lord Chief Justine said they could not do that. They
must give their decision on what they considered to be the
true construction of the act.
Rule discharged accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.--JAN. 18.

Sittinp inßanco.-zptfore Lard Claief Justice Erle, and

Jurtices Wilibusa, Willis, sad Hosting.)

The court wee occupied all day with two cases of de-
murrer, which were of so interest to the public.
Sittings at Nisi Prins in Loodoo.—(Before Mr. JustiZe
Bytes cud sCommoo Jury.)

THE LONDON INVEsTMENT COMP/01T (LIMITED) r. BIRD.—

TROVEH.

.....
This was an action to recover damages in consequence of
the defendant having taken posseesion of a quantity of
household furniture, which was claimed by the plaintiffs.
Mr. J. J. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. M. Lloyd appeared for
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. M. Griffith
for the defendant.
The facts were shortly three :—Mrs. Meyer kept two I
German lodging-houses, one in the neighbourhood of Flea-
! bory-squre, and the other at the West-end, and expecting
a great influx of t:sitors during the Exhibition year she
applied to the defendant, an upholsterer, to supply her with
a quactity of furniture. la January, 1862, she accordingly
had of him 12W. worth of furniture, and the agreement
was that she wu to have it for nine mouths at a rent of
20/. a mouth, with the option of purchasing it, and taking
these monthly payments as part of the purchase-money.
In February, 1863, the plaintiffs advanced illl, (upon some
of the furniture, and their case was that prior to this ad-
vance the defendant, who bad been paid 501., had agreed to
forego his claim upon the furniture in consideration of some
ercuritite banded to him. The defendant denied that this
was PO, and asserted that his security was still in existence,
and he having put it in force by taking ponession of some
of the goods, the present actiou was brought.
The jury ultimately found for the plaintiffs, damages 401.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—JAN. 18.
&gimp io Banco.—(Before Lord Chief &Too Pollock,
and Barons Martin, Channel), and Pigott.)
AMON V. GRRAT WZATRRN RAILWAY. . . .

This was an actioa to recover the mount of certain
overcharges alleged to have been made upon the carriage of
parcels for the plaintiff, and it now canes before the court
upon a special case stated by an arbitrator for its opinion.
The question was whether the company were entitled to
charge an extra slam for • "packed parcel," which con-
sisted of a series ut small parcels collected by the plaintiff
from different parties, and was sent by railway in one
pelage. As the principal points in the case had before
been decided by one of the other courts in Westminster-
ball it was agreed between the parties, before any argument
was gone into, that judgment should be entered for the
plaintiff, in seder that the case might be takes by way of
appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber.
- Mr. Lush. Q.C., and Mr. J. Browne were counsel for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Y. Smith, Q.C., for the defendants.
The court was occupied during the entire day with the
special paper, but none of the other oases were of any
public importance.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—JAN. 18.
(More Mr. Commisgioaa Ooulburn.)
Ili SR W. IiCYPHRIZri.

The bankrupt, so ironmonger, Wri;eg.street, Hellion,
earns up to pass his examination and apply for his order a
discharge. Unsecured debts, 4,7631.; assets, returned at
3,043/., realised, 7471.
Mr. Needham, for the 'mimes, stated that the hanlampt's
stock, which was large, had bees sold at a great sacrifice
before the assignees were appointed. The bankrupt com-
muned his account. with a deficiency of 9931., but it did
sot appear bow that amount was arrived at.
The official euignee's clerk stated that it was vouched by
the books, which contained a regular statement of liabihtien
and manet•
Mr. Needham pointed oat that the expenditure had bees
may emeasive. In one year the bankrupt had spent 5'.3/.
in his domestic expemes, which, with tee trade expenses,
interest, and law casts, amounted to 2,0411.
Mr. Lucia opposed for Messrs. Redmayna, of Rotherham,
from whom the bankrupt had ordered 1801. worth of regia.
ter stoves in Jane last, when he owed nearly as muck as
at the time of his haakruptcy. In July (the bankruptcy
being in September) he had mortgaged • house which be was
building to Messrs. Denton and Hall. He got an advance
of 2001., and the house wan worth 350/.
The bankrupt, being asked what prospect be bad of
paying Moms. Redmayne, said that be wee tryiag to sell 1
some houses and also his bushman. He started in 1858 wish
a capital of 1,500/. He had taken an old stock, and found
it worthless to the extent of 500/. or 6001. He had incurred
bad debts with builders of 7001. or 8001., and took bonne
in payment, whereby he incurred as additional lees of
1,000/. His large expenditure was caused by heavy due-
ton' bills, advertising in the papers and at railway station,,
and by law costa.
Mr. Nicholson. for the bankrupt, contended that there
was no ironed for charging him with coutractiog debt.
without reasonable means of payment. He had bora
" picked up" by builders, and had thus got involved. Bet
for the creditors having driven the man into bankruptcy,
they would have got a dividend of 15e. in the pond.
lir. Graham's clerk stated that the dividend would be 4a.

Mile pound.
His Honour said the man's aatecedents were favourable.
He had Dot been bankrupt or insolvent before ; he had
begun with a capital ; bat haying got into difficulties, he
had neglected his cash-book, bad raised money by accornmo-
datloa bills, and had mortgaged everything be could lay his
base on. AU this time, though be was going down bill,
kis expenditure bad been enoriuous—*2.loUl. against profits
of 1,3109/. He had clearly brought himself within two clauses
of the 159tb section—anjustiliable extravagance in hiring
and contracting debts without probable means of pay-
ment. Taking into consideration that he gave up a large
amount of property, the order of discharge would be sue-
: goaded for iii months, with protection.