The Express.
London, England, 1864-05-28 00:00:00

COMPANIES MID TIM WILLIMNOWL

This was a ease which was said to be very =patient to
dock companies on the one had and wharfitgers on the
other, and the facts wen ghostly these: lb. City of
Edinburgh, en Rant lediames, mane Into the Loodon Dear
pc the 2.4tb March, sod on the afternoon of the 264 k the
4laintiffs, who were whardisors, gave to Chapman, a
htermas, a Custom-house order to fetch • quantity of
bides from the ship, and may them to Pickle Herriag
Wharf. easy, as apprentice of Chemise's, vial oe
board the ship after 4 o'clock p.m., handed the order to
the secoad mate, asked whether the goods were ready for
delivery, sad was told that they were not. Then was not
at this time any lighter of Cbsprnan's aloupide, but there
was one within sight, sad there won others ia the dock,
which Mamma could have bed the ties of. On the lotkrw-
lag day the geode were loaded is Ike dodo, sad 101. 1h Id.

had to be paid to get delivery of the goods from the docks.
The pretest action was to mom" Via sum, and at the trial
the verdict wee for the *MVOs, gabled to the *Mon at
the court. The quesike in &pate toned upon the coo.
strata= of a clams in the Merchant Bhippitg hosendineet
Ad, whisk staled that obesegeode have heel mimed for
&livery at say caw wharf Mae that where the ship is
imloadtag, and the shipper has aired and been ready to
take delivery thereof, aid the shipowner has failed to asks
such delivery, this the skipper shell give the maw 24
hem? Notice in writing of his readiams to deliver the goods,
and that if he should unship the same without such notice
he shook' do so at his owo memos.
Mr. F. X. White sow appeared to show came against a
role to enter a verdict for the defendaat, and Mr. Gifford
and Mr. Murphy to support the rule.
In the cosine of the argument it was mid on ace aide
that the book company wore anxious to get the warehousing
of goods into their owe bands to Use prejudice of ts
Jaws ; whilst au the other it wee mid that the order ought
toIIIVO been delivered in bean= boors with betties Moog-
side, and that if this were not required the lightermee
would treks um of the dodos far Moir owl' convenienos,
and would come peat delay is the reload* of ships.
The Lord Air( Jetties said he was ot *mon that the
plaintiffs had a right to recover. It was plaia that the plea.
tiffs desired to get the goods oat of the ship, and that he
seat the lighterman there for that pupas ; and if instead
of there Wag only inns appreotim let shore had been
two or this. man, eel it had been in working hours,
instead of after four in the afternoon, it was impossibie
me what 1311 X• could have bees does. If the goods had
been ready, no doubt Coley, who wee 18 years old, would
have been competent to receive the The barge, it was
true, was lying 100 yards off; bat that was praMically the
as same if it had beat aloopide. The plaMtiffs' lighter-
man had done all that was ocammary to 'we the goods,
and having beat told thst they were not =y for delivery,
the shipowner was booed to pee 24 hours' motion before he
landed them at the docka—Rule discharged.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—MAY 27.
(Wore Lard Chief Buoy Pollock, mod Buono Martin, Bram-
well. awl Charm.%)
WIWALL N. DLLIOT AND ANOTNIR—IMIIIAZENN

This was an action for the infringement of a patent for
laying down submarine electric telegraph cables. The trial,
which took plate before the Lord Chief Banta at the sittings
in Middlesex after but Hilary Term, occupied five days, and
resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues, with
40s. damages. The alletiCringement was is the laying
ca down of the able fromßangoon to Singapore in November,
1860. The owe now came fare the court upon a rule to
ester the verdict for the defendant, or for a new trial.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., the Hon. Mr. George Delman, Q.C.,
Mr. Sinjoant Etellantioe, Mr. Quoin, and Mr. llszkby, were
counsel for Jr.t plaintiff ; and -Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr.
Cleasby, Q.C., and Mr. Bidder, fat the defendants.
The arguments of counsel have cioniFied the greeter part
of four dap.
The Lord Chief Baron mid that the object of the rule
was—first, to enter a verdict for the defendants upon the
question of the infringement of the patent ; and next, for a
new trial, on the ground that the verdict of the jury was,
if Dot altogether ainiupported by the evidence, undoubtedly
contrary to the weight of evidence ; and thirdly, a question
was raised with respect to the validity of the patent itself.
With regard to the first point they were all of opinion—his
brother Martin entertained some doubt upon the question,
but not sufficient to differ from the rest of the court—that
the verdict ought to be entered for the defendants on the
infringement. They considered there was no evidence to go
to the jury of any infringement ; in point of feat either u
this country or eleewhers. With respect to the mooned
point the court had nothing but a choice of difficulties,
to give the defendants the benefit of • new trial, on the
ground of the verdict being against the weight of evidence,
or to deprive them of that and allow the Court
of Error to say whether there was any evi-
deuce at all, and if there was, the verdict for the plain.
tiff would remain. As the counsel for the plaintiff had
refund to commit to any arrangemeet which would have
prevented that, be did not see how the court could do
justice between the parties without following the precedent
originally 'adopted by this court and followed by the Courts
of Queen's Bench and Common Plan, and suspending the
question of • new trial until the judgment of the Exchequer I
Chamber, or perhaps the Home of Lords, on the point of
law bad bees obtained. The result of the judgment of the
court would be that the rule should be made absolute to
enter the verdict for the defendants on the point of infringe-
ment, that the question of • new trial skald be reserved,
and that the rule should be discharged with respect to all
the other matters.

Mr. Boren Martin mid that while aracurrim in the judg-
ment of the net of the court, if the decision of the CYO bad
depended entirely on his opinion he would have made the
rule absolute fora new trial, although he personally did not
entertain much doubt that then was no evidence of an in
fringement to go to the jury.
Mr. Baron Bramwell was of opinion that the verdict
should be entered for the defendante on the issue of not
guilty, there being no evidence of say infringement of the
patent.
Mr. Baron Channel expressed the mine opinion.
Rule absolute to enter a verdict for the defendants on the
plea of not guilty.

The Attorney-GemirVl ;UTbe wished to make a state-
moot to the court in reference to • subject mentioned yes-
terday by his learned Bleed the Solicitor-General on his
behalf. His learned friend stated that he appreheeded the
oonamosoce of the arraogement made in the cam of the
"Attormy•Oeneral v. Laird and mhos," remeeting the
steam rime seised at Birkenhead, would be that the judg-
ment of the court would pass for the mown. What he
moist to convey, however, wee that that would probably
be the formal mode of giving effect to the arrangement.
The Lord Chief Baron—l understood the flaboiror-General
to in that those who came in after the rams were seised
and claimed them had withdrawn their claim, and that
therefore the seizure on the part of the crown remained
uriemitosted.
The Attoren-Genetal—lt was premature it the Solicitor-
General conveyed to your lordship's mind that the formal
steps had either been taken or their particular form de-
cided. I believe be ouly meant to state his impression of
what would be the comequeem of the arrangemeot, but it
la possible an erroneous coestruction may be put on what
he said, and lam most anxious to comply with the teems-
able wish on the other side, that there should be no mime-
premotatios at all as to the true position of the matter.
The crown has to the Lest averted that there was a valid
seizure and a valid forfeits" and the claimable have to the
Let smarted. sad Maid still, and maintain their right to
continue to Wino that there was no valid forfeiture, bet the
case has by so &trinomial been withdrawn from the °Gi-
uliano. of the emit, and this lima bean done
on the biotin that the crown has agreed :„.„.. the
claimant. the value which the crown itself has
the property. This will be dome entirely without prej=
to the position either of the mown or the cdaintanan with
regard to the question which would have been tried if this
arrangement bad not bees made. The mode of giving
effect to this arrangement has not yet bees decided upon.
I wish it to be understood that no one has been authorized
to sty that then has been any admission on the part of the
claimant. that they have violated the law.
Sir H. Cairns, who appeared for the defendants, said it
was, of wares, very iropertant that the misapprehension on
the subject should be cleared up. The Attoroey•General
had now clearly and distinctly removed the muse of the

Thirierd Chid Baron—Certaiely the Inplanstioa gives
to-day has become neournary, bscause undoubtedly the state.
meat of the Solicitor-General yesterday was, that the claim
op the part of the claimants had been withdrawn, and that
therefore the seizure of the vessel stood uncontested.
Sir H. Ciiirse-1 am sure the Solicitor-General did Dot
desire to do that.

Baroo—The Solicitor General unquestion-
ably used the words " the claim has been withdrawn."
Sir H. Cainse-1f that ipavii nee to the mmapprstanision, I
am glad webers had this explasation.
After some further conversation the matter dropped.