The Express.
London, England, 1848-12-08 00:00:00

Webster, and Mr. Illtedusanh were enamel for the prow'
elation ; end Fit Frederick 'Meatier, Mr. Serpent Moat).
Priem% She., and Mr. Maack appeared at behalf of
the defendaat.—Mr. Cockburn, for the prosecution, after
, explaining the nature of the machine (a model of which was
' in court), proceeded to state that it did not spree veil' the
don, and that in 1834 as Mamie= gentleman of
treatise of Hamilton hid In that eountry taken out a
patent for a @swims machine similar to Mr. Mr.
Hamilton's son also took out a patent for the same dime-
Yell" in Parte. la 1836 two Renames of the name of
Gibbs and °att., had a patent granted to them, fora sawing
machine, which in no important particular differad from
that of which the defendant was the palmate*. The defen-
dant slid not pretend that the whole of the machine ems a
new investiao, but that certain portions of it w l,
and that, therefore, he was entitled to retain the patent
whisk had been granted him. The ironed on whisk the
prcareutor rested his cam was, that this allegation on the
of the defendant was incorrect. Evidence was then adduced
on the part of the prosecution to the effect that the elladline
was in no way an ',Weal invention of the defendant. The
details were of no public [sweat The case was hot part
heard at the Anis, ot the court.
The court also eat in banes, and disposed of some demur-
rers, which did not involve any point of general Interest.

COURT OF CORMON PLl3lol—lntaTititDAY.
Panne In Bone after tents.
Cow LIMO It. Cox.—Diaonstontica Or A StiertittlA.-0a
the gritting of the court judgmi at wee gives in this case,
which was an a
ntics against the defendent Inc neglecting to
as • witess, in obedience to his @Allspice*, at the trial
:rat.•
is which the now plaintiff was also:
plaintiff. The
&situation stated that owing to the acm-appearance of the
defendant, who was a material whams at the trial of the
iceuea don that ooca,ion, the plaintiff was then
obl,ged to withdraw his record, whereby le had togatis
costs incidental to such step. The defendant •
amongst other pleas, a denial that the plaintiff had s
foroy
owes of action in the former suit Suck plea WY Mod
the defendant by the jury, wh.) negatived that the pkdatiff
bad any cause of action in the former salt, but esgemely
found that the defendant was a material witness be grave
some of the issues. The only viatica new mist upon •
rule obtained by plaintiff for juipmest °WOW. wells%
upon the plea so found for the defendant, wee effsether the
absence of a rod cause of action in the previews mint took
away the plaintiff's right, to cue the pressatdahmlast,whem,
as here, it appeared his 'eidetic* was material, mkm se the
costs were courerned, to the finding of Sallie of tile bow.
The court said, the plea taking issue apes the mdellefeeb a
soy cause of action was so mower in Ike present Md.
therefore, that the rule for judgment, sea etetarits Tem
dicta, ought to ha made absolute.--,ladgmeit for *MR!'
ace,rdingly.
But Yana—beetrelln Junior enema sad a Special Jury.
CATLIN v. Mitts AUD 075111 Plittratarems or MU
DiAtionD STRAW Parlay Cumr.twa•—This wee a numbs
down cam, and occupied the whole day. Tha scene of the
smident, which took plate between two Thames stealases,
we. at a ascot distance from R wherrille.pier, seek ileastmetr-
ring to reach the pier Wore the other la order to had their
passengers. whilst the plaintiff who was as beard sae of
them was thrown from his sent by the sollieics and get his
leg broken. The defendant's case was sot gore hte wtion of
hom
the eoucourtnee, and we therefore postpose • fuller mo
the trial.

COURT OF EXCHRQgeUER.—YarannaT.
wa is sense.
VIE LATE MIL JElamT 0i NTANFINLD-NALL.
BARRETT O. JRUMT.—POLICT Or ANSURANCI—NOTICI
Or CllAXol.—This was en action on a fire policy, is which
the defendant was the unfortunate gentleman whose name
has been of late so prominently brought before the public
eye in consequence of his tragical end, he being sued is his
diameter of chairman of the Norwich Union Issuance
once.—At the trial before Chief Junkie Wilde, at Warwick,
it appeared that the plaintiff, being a boiler of oils, dad
effected en insurance ou his trade premises to
the extent of 1001. for the building and 501. fee
the goods in the yard. At that time he had
two boilers erected in the yard, which were heated by RAN,
but after the policy had been effected be removed the boilers
into one of the rooms, placed tires under each, built a stack
of chimneys over them and used them for boiling varnish,
the article being inahjeet to a higher rate of premium than
oil. It unfortunately happened that after the lapse of a
short time an accident took place in this room, and a fire
ensuing, the premises were butht,whenupon this action wee
nought. The defendants rested their came oui the change,
which they contended vitiated the policy, as no notice had
been minuet it to them. On this allegation the plaintiff
took issue, and evidence was given on both sides. LA NM-
suing up the case, the Chief Justin, among other matters, told
the jury that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that
notice had been given, and that if the contradictory evidence
loft that matter in doubt the jury ought to find for the de.
fondant, as the onus of peening notice as a fact wee on the
plaintiff.—The jary having found for the defendnd ant
m,
isdi-
this
rule for a new trial was obi, lad on the grou of
ration, and also to enter judgment for the plaintiff non
that the plea
anent" rimedieto, it being alleged
of the defeadius were bad is law, and afforded no answer
to the dediration of the plaintiff.—Mr. Wlutehurst and Mr.
Willmore now appeared for the company, and submitted
that the direction of the learned judge was uirrat. It was
the duty of the plaintiff to give the notice of the change be-
fore he made it or used the boilers at all for any purpose in
the building. He ought, therefore, to have shows by direct
evidence that such notice had been given—if not, he might
make the company liable against their will for a doubly ha-
zardous trade on a pintails= charged on an ordinary trade.
Tne policy, they contended, was absolutely avoided by the
change, though it might be set up again if the odes sese-
+loud the change. They might not do so. however, and
therefore the policy could not be supposed to exist under the
change till a reasonable time should have elapsed, width)
which the assured might give such notice. The con-
ditions of the polity an that the pocy should he void on
any such change, alms notice be given, and the asap be
assented to ; such assent being notified by indonsment ei the
secretary or meat on the policy. If the policy AMU lest
till a reasonable time for real^e the company would then be
held liable, during Inch period, though they might ranee
their assent at its expiration, as sacs as they had inanities
of the change.—Mr. Huafrey, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Will's
en the other hand, contended that the plaintiff was entitled
to a reasonable time to give notice ; and that the Chief Jus-
tice was in erne when he told the jury that it lay on the
plaintiff to prove a notice beyond all doubt. The obligation
under the issue was on the defendant to show that no notiee
hid been given, and the plea ought to have agred
earn
that
notice wen not given within a reasonable time.—Lho
took time to consider.—.ludgment
Nw defined.
Tans.—Before elf F. Pollock, sal a Middlesex Saga
Jury.
Fox AND Drams O. WILD, I.IABILITT or
MINIUM{ or Joust STOCK Knowles,
Q C., and Mr. M. Smith, were cased fa the nasal& ;
Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Atkisson, for the defendant. la
1815, it appeared, amongst the various projects then sontea-
plated was the working of a mine, known as the Wheel
LoLovell Mine, in Cornwall. It was determined to form for
that purpose a oomany, which was to have been limited to
500 Siam, bat there were only 360 taken. The defendant
first booms the proprietor of five shares, and paid 264. each
upon them. He afterwards tea eleven shares. At a meet-
ing of the 'many held in December, 1846, it was rewired
that the works should be proceeded with, and that the
various caws necessary for that purpose should be ap-
pothted. The defendant signed these resolutions. He however
gave seam in October, 1848, of his intention to retire hem
the underlain altogetner, and expressed a desire that the
sompeare slain should he wound up seeording to the para-
noias of** eat relating to such sitars. That course was
not takers,
_end the
:present action was
pumpht to recover
1811. 2d. for goods supplied foe the es of the an-
dertakiag between January, 1848, and October, 1847. Evi-
dence of these fans having been given, it wae contended for
the drandaCthat be was not liable as &shareholder, the
amber of alai originally proposed not having been taken
or pall hr. Asa further, it woe argued, he could not be
hold liable for goods supplied after October, 1848, when he
explicitly gave sass that he intended to retire 'Regular
from the eargers.—The plaintiff's counsel thought there was
no doubt of the defendant's liability for the full sum claimed,
but with a view to curtail litigation they consented to take a
verdict foe the goods supplied before October, 1848. A ver-
dict foe 1081. was accordingly returned for the plaintiff.

SHERIFF'S COURT—Tureen/wax.
Wore Mr. Under Sheriff BurshelL
GILL V. lIVROVIII.—PAITNIERSIIIP QUARZELL—The
plaintiff in this case. according to the milord, was an attorney
named dell. The action was to recover the sum of 41.105.,
es the balance upon a bill of exchange far 61.10,.—Mr. Hog-
gins wee swarm' for the plaintiff, Mr. Charsock for the de-
tendaaL—Mr. den and a Mr. Harwood were formerly in
partnership as soliciton, and the defendant, who wen oho a
solicitor, though in somewhat bumble *meestanoss, had
had some Dimness transactions with the firm. A dissolution
of the partnership took ace, and • bill of exchange for
61. 10e, which the defendant bad given to Mr. Gall, as the
balance of the account between them, VIM into the pomm-
el= of Mr. Norwood. Mr. Gill had made an arrangement
with the defendant regarding the bill, and had given him a
written guarantee that no proceedings should be taken
against kiss upon it, but Mr. Harwood commenced an action
against the defendant to mover. Tailing in that astioe as
the bill wm not endorsed to him, but to Gill, Mr. Homniod
omemeneed the present action in the name of GilL Har-
wood was now called as a witness, but the reception of his
terthoony was objected to, on the ground that he was the
hesh-fide plaintiff, and this haring been overraled by the
mart, he stated that he bought the bill of Mr. Gill, and
that the defendant had promised to pay him. Fur the de-
fendant the written guaranice given by elleU was put in, and
iHarwoot was proved that Gall bad, through • solicitor, informed
d that Mr. Burris had arranged the bill, and cau-
tioned him against proceeding against the defnidant. In
rt•plying, Mr. Hogging Paid that maid be go into the cir-
commences connected with the dissolution, he could show
some reason whis affair bad arisen, but he must decline
doing so; still contended that as his client bad actually
bought the bill of the other partner, he had a clear right to
recover. Verdict for the defendant.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT..lfunannv.
Before Yr. Coramiedower law.
IN NZ DION DI DOUSCICAIILT.—This potitiooor. a lite-
rary sad dramatic author, came up to.dsy, by appointment,
fortis Baal order to be conridered. The debts set forth in
the schedule amounted to 7861., of whisk cum 1121. wire
liabilities fir which he had received no consideration. The
=ton wu entered by llausre. Levi, whine chief inquiry
te the deposition of the insoluat's estate. It wu
Atipigatwbalaace•sheet that his receipts
al during 1846,
2 net• 0111111 ifikvil lidlotet 5001. year. He was mar-
, disposed of the whole of
his wife's property, nlych was settled on bertelf. for the sum
of 2,6001,, ot which he had ri ceived nearly half. lie had
bus interested in a vast number of dramatic yorks ; was