The Express.
London, England, 1864-02-18 00:00:00

TRU RSDAY EVENING,

Kato Intellistnts.
EQUITY COURTS.—Figs. 17.
(Beton till" Lard Chancellor.)
POIWILL r. lIONTOOL

The hearing of this suit, to &doom the validity of the
plaintiff's patent for mewing mashing., wee resumed this
the rd Chancellor suggested that the plaintin counsel
should point out the body of the alleged invention as it was
described in the specificatioe, and show him that the thing
so described wee to be found in that part of the specifica-
tion to which he bad limited the plaintiff's claim ; if his
lordship were satisfied on these points the evidence respect-
ing the novelty would become available ; but if the parti-
cular invention was so described within the part of the
specification which be had marked out that a person reeding
the specification could not discover from it the invention,
he must find that the specification was inadequate.
Yr. Grove, for the plaintiff, argued that in a specifioation
a patentee was not only required to describe the nature of
his inventor, but to show the manner of working it. Now,
though the description of the operative part might be nearly
the same with that of another inventor, this did not detract
from the merit of his invention if there was a merit in the
invention itself. The patentee claimed a patent for a new
combination applied to a pima* snit shuttle machine, and
this combination was to substitute simplicity of
action instead of what had cousisted of cumbrous
machinery. It was only fair, in judging of the
case, to recoUset the extent to which improvements in sewing
machines had previously sdvanood ; for • person drawing
a specification would bent them in mind, and take them
for granted, and this was what was done in the present
instance.

Idr. Manisty followed on the name side.
Mr. Hind/iamb contended that the duty of explaining
his invention was thrown upon the patentee, a duty which
had not been complied with in the apecifieation. It was
not in the art of man to dieoover from the specification
what the plaintiff claimed.
The man is only part heard.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENOH.—Fu. 17.
Satiny at GuildhalL—(Before Mr. Justice Sir► sod a
Oommor Jury.)
BHIR3INGTON V. HALL.

This was an actin° for slander, brought by tke4atiff,
a baker io the New Cot, Lambeth. The etandsrto
have beta need was that the plaintiff was a thief, that
the defendant would have him tried at the Central Criminal
Court. . .. . .

fheosse was one in which theusual contradictory evidence
was addowid, sod
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
damages la.

SIPI.ON r. DAVIS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in (Images against the defendant, an attotoey
in the City, for negligence in conducting a suit against
person named Oarbonosan, for whom the plaintiff had sold
wines on commission, and whose goods be instructed
.

the defendant to attach in the Lora Mayor's Court. He
alleged that be had paid the defendant U. to carry on the
stet, but uevertheless the defendant abendoeed it. Car-
bonell= left the country, and the ratio ta never COI his
mosey.
The defence was that an attorney was not brand to carry
on a suit without the chest gave him moimey.Fn appli-
cation to do so. The defendant applied to the 'cid for
money by a certain day ; he did not send it, the deka.
dant was usable to enter the case. As to the U. the Wen.
dant had received, it was too late, and it was ocly sufficient
toisay costs out of pocket.
The jary returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages,
221. L. N.

Narraordt began to make complaints of his con-
duct. I have seen wheals and bruises all over
her. I have been with her to his mother's to ask
her for something
•to cover her nakedness and her children's,
for she lied weedily anything to wear. She has come and
slept at my house. Ona night abs OWN with a most serious
t, and I w that her under-linen was covered with
=sa
which had wow from bruins as her mused by her
laushand's hands.
Crose.exiunined—The Inaba were not bleeding when I
sow them, but I could see that they had bled.
Mary Jane Couch—l wee in the service of Mx. and Mn.
Narrsoott for three months in 1855. Mrs. Narraoott
seemed to be very uncomfortable. Ono night she was
aleepang with me because her husband would not allow her
to sleep with him. The petitioner came up, dragged my
mistress out of bed by her hair, and drove us both down
into the coal-mike, where he kept us two hours in our
night-dresses. He wee not drunk, but he was mad. He
heaved my box out of the window. He was in the habit of
using language too bad for me to mention. Once he told the
respondent to take her child and go into the etreets and
beg in the gutter. Have not heard him call her names.
Mrs. Namboott took her male with me. He would not
allow her to set with him. She had not the same food as
her husband. He did not allow her proper things.
Crom-examined-1 first mentioned this some months ago.
I left Mr. Narracett's service beaus he treated his wife
so badly. While he was keeping us in the ooalhole, he was
running about the boom like a madman. We were deed-
ing there in fear, but neither the petitioner nor we spoke •
word. _ .

Several other 'errant' were examined, sad gave evidence
of a similar chareceer. .

At the oonclnsion of the cio•respoodent's °MS, some dis-
cussion arum as to the admissibility of evidence tendered
by the Solicitor-Oenemd to rebut the meter:lents of Mr.
Lissketh's witnesses. . . .

-LT Pia; ridlts would Maids Qs point to-morrow,
sad the court adjourns&

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Fa s. 17.
(Before W. Commielima Goulbaro.)
iltiaLromirsox

The bankrupt was a cab and omoibua proprietor, of
Broad-court, Bowatrest. Debts, 1,5001. ; no amest• The
case has been before the court upwsrds of a twelvemonth.
It will be remembered as the car in which it wu sworn
that the bankrupt wu in posterioa of • bag of sovereigns
and a roll of notes, apparently of the amount of 400/. or
5001., very shortly before the bankruptcy. This fact was
deposed to by • creditor named Garman, and strongly de-
nied by the bankrupt ; but at the lest sitting an adjourn-
ment sine die was ordered. _ _

—Tirebanir; 73;W ;ame before the court for his exami-
nation and ducbergs. Ile adhered to his previous statement,
that he hall no mow y is his possession at the time spoken
to by Garman, and had kept nothing back from his cre-
ditors. _ _

-1.67 Sargood opposed for creditors, and Mr. Aldridge for
the official amigos*.
Two otherIiDISSIMI, W. Buell, a livery stable keeper,
of Weetmioster, and William Henry Wild, • broker, of
Lambeth-walk, ware now brought forward, sod each spoke
to seeing • large amount of mousy in the bankrupt's posses-
sion a short time before his bankruptcy. The bankrupt
mom-examined those witnesses at some length, with • view
to show that their story was • concocted one, and then id-
dressed the court in his own behalf, in • speech of hall-sa-
hour's duration. . .

Ha Honour adman:led the examination sine die, oa the
Crthat the accounts wen unsatisfactory sed untrue,
iad re protection for • fortnight, until he should decide
whet was to be ultimately done in the case
(Before Yr. Commissioner Fans.)
0 RN JOHN AYB&Oer COMT.

the bankrupt was described ea • manufacturing and con-
salting manner, of Prorideom.row. Finsbury. This was
the adjourned sitting for axaminatioo and dischanp. Hs
owes to unsecured creditor 8,2361. ; to those holding secu-
rity, 9,426/. Amens stated at 5001. ; property held, 3001.
The bankrupt's expenditure had been 3304 a year. The
largest unsecured creditors are the London and Middlesex
Bank, 2,3061. Mr. J. P. Wskeham, of Alpha-terraos,
Westminster, is returned an a secured creditor for 7.3831. ;
he holds as security bills and the lease of the bankrupt's
premises.
Mr. C. E. Lewis appeared for the amignees, and Mr.
Lucas for the bankrupt.
Some inquiry was made as to the disposal of a sum of
1501., which had MOO into the bankrupt's poseemion shortly
before the failure, and a short adjournment wee ordered for
the amendment of the amounts.