The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-18 00:00:00

tatn Evittlltactur.

EQUITY CCTUATB7—Strelpi.r.

Before the Lord Chancellor.

lie TN* MATTE. or DYCII SOMORIL—IN LUNACT.—Tbir
petition presonted by the lunatic for leave to continue his
residence abroad, and for payment to bhn of the full allow-
ance of 6,0001. a year (the sum originally allowed for his
maintenance out of his income), to be applied by him as he
pleased, without any restraint or obligation to render as
account of the expenlitare,rorn opened to the court on
Thursday and further discussed yesterday, and reported in
this paper to-day. It appeared from the affidavits of Lord
Cernbermere and others, read by Mr. Rolt and Mr.
Shadwell in support of the petition, that Mr. David Ouch-
terlony Dyce Sombre, the lunatic, was born in India in 1808,
being the son of the Begum Sambre by General Alexander
Dyce, who was himself half Indian and half British ; that
he came to this country in 1838, end some time after was mar-
ried to the Hon ht.ss „le ry is, daughter of Earl St. Vincent, and
that in 1843 he was found to be of unsound mind. The learned
counsel argued that the only unsoundnme to which he one
now subject consisted of his imaginary conversations with
spirits, and the unfounded suspicions of his wife's conjugal
fidelity, which, they said, proceeded front his Indian notions
and prejudices. They admitted that Le was addicted to cer-
tain sensual indulgences, but in all matters relating to the
expenditure of his money he was as careful as other persons,
and therefore no evil could arise from granting him a larger
allowance, and allowing him to upend it without a check or
oontrol.
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Calvert, in behalf of Mrs. Dyes
Sombre, yesterday and to-day read numerous affidavits, and
argued from them that the petitioner was crown worn by
the indulgences lie had, and that it would be unsafe to allow
Ishii the paeans of coy further indulgence.
Mr. Tinney, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Fitz-Moore, appeared
for the committee of the estate, aid for the nest of kin et! the
lunatic, and concurred in the arguments against any further
indulgence to him.
The Lord Chancellor, referring to a suggestion clone of
the counsel, to the sit et that the petition was not so mach
the act of the lunatic, as of some persons who had obtained
influence over him abroad said, that fact, if true, vt "old
weigh much on his mind, in considering the prayer of the
pi tition. •
Mr. Rolt denied that any improper influence was used by
any person over the lunette, and then proceeded to reply,
but the Lord Chancellor rose before he finished. Adjourned
to Monday.

B, fore the Mader of the Rolls.
FISHER V. OLIVE R.—FAITHS` SUR THE MARV FACTVII FOP
Leer..—ln 1832 the plaintiff, William Crofts, invented
certain improvements in the machinery us'd for the menu.
Lecture of lace or net, called bobbin net, and he promised
the plaintiff Fisher to advance hem money to take out a
patent for his invention, upon the terms that they were to
be entitled to the patent in equal moieties, and provision
was made fur the like joint ownership of any future patent
to he obtained for farther improvements. In November,
1838, Crofts invented farther improvements for the manufac-
ture of lace, and a patent was then obtained fur them. The
specification described in substance the invention to be,
amongst other things, for the manufacture of ornamental
lace having opaque clothwork produced therein in varied
pattern according to the taste of the designers in bobbin net
machines by working with additional warp threads to each
carriage or bobbin thread. Infringements were made by
lacemakers at Nottingham of the plaintiff's patent, and in
1840, 1841, and 1842, they instituted legal proceedings
against divers parties, which resulted in their rights being
acknowledged by the parties sued, and compensation made to
them ; and in 1843 they filed a bill in Chancery against the pre-
seat defendants, who were fancy lace and edging. manufacturers
at Nottingham, to restrain them from infringing the patent,
and the defendants acknowledged the infringement, and
compromised the suit by paying the plaintiffs 3001. for costs
and damages, and they undertook not to infringe it again. In
1846 the plaintiffs discovered that the defendants Were again
infringing the patent, and they filed this bill in October last,
to restrain them, and now moved fur an injunction. It was
stated that the petent was worth 200,0001., and that there
was a general combination amongst the members of the lace
trade to defeat it, and that the present suit was
defended by a subscription amongst tbem. The motion
was resisted on the grounds that there was no novelty in the
invention—thit there was no infringement—and that if there
were, the plaintiffs bad acquiesced in it —For the plaintiffs
It was urged that the court ought to erant an injunction at
once, without first putting the plaintiffs to establish their
rights at law, having regard to the previous acknowlerbf meet
of the patent by the defendants.—Messrs. Turner, Montague
Smith, and Daniell were for the plain•iffs ; Messrs. indene
ley, Glasse, and Webster for the defendants.
The Master of the Rolls said he would consider what
course he ought to take, but he certainly should not grant an
injunction without an undertaking by the plaintiffs to tey
their right in an action at law. The question was whether
he should grant the injunction at once or refuse it, leaving
the plaintiffs to bring their action, and compelling the de-
fendants to keep an account in the meantime. He had no
wisb to interfere with the discretion of the plaietiffs as to
the mode of establishing their right at law, hut the form et
the pleadings ought not to embamiss the &Conduits in
setting up any defence they might think proper.

Before the Vion.Chaneellor of England.
BALDWIN T. DAYEN.—ALLEGED MINCONDUCT OP RAIL-
WAY Di ItECTOEIX. INJUNCTION TO IIIATILMN TREK
FROM RECEIVING MONZT.-11r, J. Parker and Mr. Wil-
ford moved for an injunction to restrain the defendants, who
were members of the provisional committee of a projected
railway, called the Great Munster Railway, from receiving
out of court a sum of 21,6001., or if they should
have already received the said sum, then to restrain them
from employing it in paying the debts and liabilities
of the company. This undertaking, which Ins now bees
abandoned, was commenced in the spring of ISIS, for tko
formation of a railway from Tralee through Limerick to
Dublin. The advertisements stated that the capital was to
be 1,100,0001. in 22,000 shares of 50/. each, with a deperit of
21. 10s. per share. The bill stated that the directors had
reserved 4,000 for their own individual use • that they had
reserved 4,000 more to be at their disposal for what they
called general purpose, SOO for the solicitor to the company,
650 for the engineer, and 300 for the secretary • and then, in
order that these shares might become profitable, they re-
served 3,000 for making a market upon the Stock Exchange.
To do this they selected a stockbroker, who found persons
to take the shares which were afterwards bought up
by friends of their own at a premium, whereby. a higk
quotation was obtained. The bill charged misconduct
on the part of the directors, and that they had improperly
reserved the above share*, and it prayed relief in respect of
such charges, and that the affairs of the company might be
wound up, and the fund, paid in discharge of the just debts
and liabilities of the company.—The defendants, who were 22
in number, formed part of the provisional committee of the said
intended railway.—Mr. Bethel, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Bacon, Mr.
Willcoek, Mr. Bagsbawe, Mr. Hubback, and Mr. Anderson
appeared for the various defendants, and contended, upon the
a..vits, that they had no knowledge of those acts which
were charged in the bill, but that when they had been dis-
covered, everything had been done on their part to satisfy the
shareholders, and every investigation had hem made into the
affairs of the company ; that, under such circumstances, it
would be matprejudicial to the interests of all parties if an
injunction were granted to restrain the defendants from re-
cening the money which was required immediately for pay-
ing off the debts of the company.
The Vice-Chancellor said, in all the previous cues of tkis
sort, the application had been to restrain the directors flea
improperly dealing
.with the funds, and the moneys of the
company were left zn court ; but in this cue the application
war to restrain the defendants from applying the funds is
any manner whatever. Now it was evident that there were
debts and liabilities which ought to be discharged. It ens
clear that amongst the number of directors, some of them
had acted wrong to the management of the affairs ; but hie
honour could not think, where there were so many
parsons of the highest respectability forming the committee,
that the funds would be improperly dealt with. The actscom-
*Med of might have been done by some few of the directive,
but the money could not be paid away without the sanction
of all. The injunction was too sweeping in its nature, fat
the effect would be to treat the innocent and the guilty alike.
If the application had been to restrain them from doing any-
thing that wee not within the terms of the act, there m4U
have been some reason M it, but as it stood he did not think
he wan justified in granting the injunction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Tux QUEEN a. EDWAND WEETBROOK.—MODE Or
RATING BRICIPIRLDS.—Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Clark-
son, appeared to support an order of the Court of Qualm
Sessions of the county of Middlesex, that confirmed, on ap-
peal, a poor-rate by which a brickfield of the defendant,
situate at Helton, near Hounslow, was assessed on a ma
composed of the rent at which the field was let out for a
chart term and the royaltT, Is. 6d. per thousand, paid on Me
average number of brick. annually made therefrom.
They contended that the assessment bad, in feet,
been made on the increased value in the bands of
a tenant, in other words, on the increased rent which
a tenant would 'rive for it, and therefore was not open to the
objection of being excessive.- Mr. Hill, Q.C., and Mr.
Pashley, for the defendant, insisted that the increased vales
of the land did not in this instance arise from profit pee-
-1 cloned, in the ordinary method, by labour solely or labour
conjoined with a material perpetually undergoing renewal,
but front a material renewable only at a very remote distaneo
of time, and only profitable when carried off the land.
Further, any calculation founded on the average of a few
ears, as in this case, was necessarily unsound and deceptive.
Lagly, deductions had not bees made for those outgoinge
without which it was impossible to obtain the profits, ea
which the turn actually assessed had been calculated. The
court poetpoued:the judgment

THE QUEEN ON THE PROIICUTION OP THE OVARDIANS
Op TIM BANGOR UNION V. THU OTIMISIRRS OP BANGOR.
—Poway OP TIE POOReLAII COMMISSIONERS, BY runt
ORDZR, TO HAIR PROVISION eon. PAYING THE COST If
A PAROCHIAL SURVIY.—This was a demurrer to a rebus
to a writ of mandamus, which commanded the overseas 41
Bangor to raise, in obedience to an order otthe guardians of
the Bangor Union, es a further sum chargeable on their
poor-ratt, the amount claimed by a geodesist
who bad been appointed to make a survey at
the parish, and instituted . .
the compensation
set up the duty
tnisionen to make

Tel by means
question which
wthe =
Ar
which empowers
shall see tit, to

the mesusges,
guardians or overseen
bas been made

survey and Talus iion
for paying the costa

I bad instituted proceedings for recoveries
nt due to him for that survey. The meant
ty of obeying an order of the poor-law cost
eke provision for paying the cost otik
of a special rate. The demi" ./ yi
iof the orders ought to bp...L.' - 4.
ed on the construction of the- • ol
Assessments Act (6 and 7
nva 4 , _..!..,
en the poor-law commissions hew% . —l, ~
order a survey and valuatilfg be . ' c- 4 s
, lands, &c., in any union et Witt"- . ~ 4
..., . -i
!omen of which a represenyftiola, dp
._
eto the poor-law ooramiawggaelhat. —"' ... :17;
uation are necessary ; and "to 12 .." 4
costs of every such survey, makr......",
.....--:....