The Express.
London, England, 1847-05-24 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1847.

thank' stand ova until Friday, the 28th ; the company
undertadog to do nothing in the saran

helm the Vice-Chanedier of instead.
BRITT O. Tall BLICTRIC TELIOILIPH COMPANY AND
MAUL—IN/UNCTION TO RISTRAIN Tax ties OF AN
Ir-
YxovsM/ar IN Till GALVANIC Arramtruk—This was a
motion foe an injunction on behalf of the plaintiffs, Mesas.
Brett and Little, who had obtained a patent for an improve-
ment in the construction of the galvanic apparatus, to restrain
the defendants from constructing, altering, making or using
any galvanic batteries, constructed or altered according to
the design registered
.by the defendant Charles Massit or
otherwise, upon the principle of the plaintiffs' said invention.
The plaintiffs had obtained the patent for their invention on
the nth February ; end the defendant Maui had registered
a design similar to theft he which the plaintiffs had obtained
thole patent on the 11th February, under the act for the
of balsas. The invention consisted in the
sigistrateon
enestenetion gunnic troughs or batteries so as
to permit the sulphuric acid to fell gradually upon
themelallie pinta *OR a reservoir above, and afterwards to
esca gni* by means of perforations at the bottoms of
pe
she eetS the-sersthe Sough, which were to be filled with
some pones salleenese. For the defendant it was contended
that a pained/ma hie Invention hid taken place previously
to the detest the plaintiffs' patent, by an agreement, dated
the 25th day of January, and made between the defendant
maths shark telegraph company, under which agreement
the delinket Masse (in consideration of the yearly sum of
fig kr ten years) agreed to allow the electric telegraph
frograyk use his inventton, end the company were to be at
Minn Miyake trial of the battery and invention for the
epees el SO days nest ensuing the date of the agree-
ment, but that if the company, at the expirauon
of the said thirty days should decline to adopt the
and invention, they should keep the same secret
from all persons whomsoever. Mr. Stuart, Mr. Webster
and Mr. Prior appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Bolt and Mr.
Metcalfe for the defendant Maui, and Mr. Bethel and Mr.
Heatbfield fer the Electric Telegraph Company.
The Viee.Chancellor said it appeared to him that no pub-
lication had taken place of the defendant's invention at the
tins of making the agreement with the Telegraph Com-
' pest', slate it was expressly provided, that in sae the cow-
pa4 Mimed at the expiration of 30 dap to adopt the
they were not to divulge the tenet, lie should,
therefore, grant the injunction.
Delos Viesainiancellor Knight Bruce.
FURNESS RAILWAY COMRANY V.
—Mr. Kenyon Parker and Mr. Currey moved, on behalf of
the Furness Railway Company, that the defendant, Mr.
John Abel Smith, and his agents, might be restrained from
excluding the railway company or others from the use of a
pier, erected by Mr. Smith, at &unpaid', in Idoreewabs-
hey. By an act of parliament of the 6th Victoria, powers
wen given to Mr. Smith, his heirs and assigns, to erect the
pier in question, with the usual clauses as to the purchase
of lands; and by the terms of the act Mr. Smith was allowed
10 years for the completion of the work. The set provided
that, as soon as the pier was completed, or so far formed that
steels could conveniently lade and unlade and passengers
land and embark there 2dr. Smith, his heirs end assigns,
&mid be entitled to demand the tolls specified in a schedule
• en. A certificate of the chairman of the Lancashire
grater onions was made, by the set, concludes evidence
of the euspletion of the pier for the purpose of the trals
bang deunaded ; and 'suds, having painted upon
them a Bet of tolls, were to be placed on some
psi of the pier. No toll was to be demanded
=hiewsnsinet this notified. While the Fusee, Railway
• wee before pastismeut, a negotiation was entered into
between the premeof that undertaking and Mr. Smith'
rumeetieg .i.ato construction of the Rampeide
branch of the Minty, which the plaintiffs now stated would
not have bees theasudertaken, unless the us
e of thole pier had
been inlanders by the weapon whet. the awl was
completed. Aber the passing of the railway act, the Dego.
Satter wen sestiand, and ultimately the contract between
Mr. Sank awl the istageny was expensed by a deed el
errwastoiseri the 4th Marn, 1845. By the dad the
esrpag sommested is Melee med eenetruct, mad erssykkls
fir ors and ornisa. Or Hoe or the seamy Sr
the propeted pier, with tranchee, es le-
fienThi. 81,1845, and Mr. Sairlibia hie pert, corsomilor
to bead, erect, and n ish the es Sheiks the same
in conformity with t fihe planspier and sentieme already appseed
of by the Lords of the Admiralty. Attonemtle it was cond
dived advisable to extend the original piste the pier, sad
a new act of parliament has been obk that pupa
ill the course of the present month. The pier hos mom
been regularly opened, nor has any certificate ef the doer-
mean of quarter sessions been obtained, nor any list e(I
set up, according to the act of parliament. Nsgotiseleme,
however, wens from time to time carried on between
Smith and the company revising • lease of the tolls, hat I
as to the terms et
the parties had not yet agreed
such a lease. In the month of August, 1846, a stesspashet
began to ply between Fleetwood and the pier, and ceatimmi
running till the following Omens?, during all wide thee
Mr. Smith permitted the passes era and the raillery tone-
-sto me the pier, without paying any toll. The packet
sew Glen to reeommene plying, the company ap-
te Smith, with a view of coming to mese sine-
end respestioi the tolls, bet Mr. Smith declined entering
Isle say inimgeoreat,oa the green& that the we of the
pier,: at preseaVweoir iMmehire with the ore. works. In
'turps' of the mdies, owe Win. in one of which
it was stated that the deftedast wadi have permitted the
pier to be used, if his terms et 1,01101. per annum for a lease
of the tolls had been amW to, nil that the m
pany, considering those terms too Idirb, had offered
to pay the tolls authorised by the pier act. It
was argued on behalf of the company net, although the
deed of covenant did not expressly stipulate that the pier
should be opened for traffic by the time specified, yet such
must be the meaning of the contract, busses • sere stipula-
tion to finish the pier before the time melded by the act
could have been of no advantage to the railway company,
unless it implied the opening of the pier for traffic. Mr.
Russell and Mr. Currey, for the defendant, contended that
the contract did not extend to this, but designedly left the
adjustment of the terms upon which the pier was to be used
before the end of the time limited by the Pier Act for its
completion to subsequent negotiation. Both parties had ful-
filled the contract so far as it extended, and it was probably
contemplated that the interests of the parties would lead to
the necessary ulterior arrangements; but in the meantime
neither had the company agreed to run any trains, nor had
Mr. Smith agreed to open his pier, and at any rate
it was a matter with which the court could not
interfere. Mr. Smith had no objection to permit
the pier to be need for three hours each tide ;
but any further use of it at present during the progress of
the new works would be dangerous to the passengers as well
an injurious to the works. Mr. Kenyon Parker in reply.—
The Vice-Chancellor would not say what the court might
have done had the proceeding been by information and bill
instead of being by bill only. As the case stood he felt him-
self Amble to view the apprehended damage as irreparable,
or as not being susceptible of penman compensation, nor
was it manifest that at the hearing • dwee mist be made
to the extent of the relief sought by this motion. His
Honour, therefore, refused the motion, though unwillingly,
reserving the coati, and without prejudice to any question
in the cause.
TRW V. DODSOIC—RAILWAY CONTRACTORB.—Mr. Russell
and Mr. Hetherington moved ex parte on behalf of the
plaintiff, a sub-contractor on the Wilts, Somerset, and Wey.
mouth Railway, for an injunction Ito restrain the defendant
from interfering with the completion of certain works by
the plaintiff, or from removing the plaintiff's machinery
and implements. The affidavit stated that the defendant
had employed the plaintiff to execute a portion of the rail-
way works under a contract, in the usual way, sad that when
the work was nearly finished the defendant attempted to put,
an end to the contract, and was about te prevent its com-
pletion and to turn the plaintiff and his workmen and ma-
chinery and implements off the line.
The Vice-Chancellor said he could only grant an interim
order as to the machinery and implements. If the defend •
ant himself improperly prevented the plaintiff from perform-
ing the contract, that would be a defence elsewhere
Anistre V. SKITIL—GRAININO MACHINERY.—Thin
was a motion on behalf of the inventor of a new draining
tile, to restrain the members of a company, with whom he
had entered into contracts, respecting the working of the
patent, from using the invention in a manner alleged to be
contrary to those oontruite.—Mr. Melina, in support of the
motion, had not concluded his opening when the court rose.

COVET OP QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Saturday was the drat day of Trinity term.) -
TRE QUEEN V. SCHLEBINOER.—INDICTIOINT FOR PER-
this case a rule had been obtained for 'mating
the judgment on an indictment for perjury, on tha following
grounds First, that the indictment stated the perjury to
bave been committed before the Sheriffs of London, whereas
the alleged false swearing took place before their dztzi
one of the secondaries; secondly, that the 'tenant
to be false was not one positively made by the de/indent,
but made with the qualification that be "times," the
statement made by him to be true • thirdly that In Indict-
ment stated the penury to have he cammittai et the trial
of divers issues before the sheriffs, whereat it manned from
the indorsement on the record, as sites* thet but one
issue had been tried on the particular ; lINly, Wet
the matter sworn to was immaterial to the beect. Mr.
Crompton now showed cause, and contended, time whaaaver
an act has been dose by a deputy lawfully empoweeei, it is
properly described as the act of the principal ; that pminry
issav be properly essigned on a Melanin% made by • peon
with the qualification "I think," hosean that be did act so
think might be saseeptlble at proof ; that in iedielmseens for
perjury the question best whet ken was Wei, bat what
came on to be tried ; and lastly, that An meld* it was too
late to impeach the materiality of a afttemost whisk ors by
remote possibility might be nianalet PIT?. Thedger, Q. C.,
and Mr. Grey, in support of the urged that the iadiet-
ment, as framed, prevented the Merlon gem
the authority to administer an onk of the Jima wig=
tried the awn that oviLkt anion asigiket cat •
statsamet =pram', q= ambit; oat thee es the
false evident might inn beau tie lweg which
was oet It wee sewolial thatthe ellesatios
that divest issues hod beat Idea love bees seoperted
by proof that maws flea wee Woe boil boa tried:—The
court was of opine& that lo Vii*,WINIANIT wee the well-
k&D" sal of Ow th• trial was wall dip-
, wand as MU bake the AMR biwoall; that
A the memo of the heiseeremot ea the roma Erni clearly
Hat the rowed huff wee yeedosel, whims mut have
implie the Iwiesmate- Weeemeed, whet hews
4, seine to be tried; theft podia aright be per* a
tin. *sod by the direst wageelve GLIM very were /fa whom,
nmeat hew Maw& sower the pert of the litho (cootie WOO be,
lawn thee waterielity was entirely a cordon lie the 'jury
am. The role for arresting the jokeeest nowt therahre he
mild- I d"rff".

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Bittinp U Beam.
This court during the present term will consist of the Lord
Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr. Jetties Menlo, sad