The Express.
London, England, 1847-12-02 00:00:00

enrity was given.—Mmers. Turner and Terrell, for the
*Motif, admitted that if a time for payment had been sti-
pulated, the sale would hare been good ; but they contended
that as no time wee mentioned, the defendant had no right
to sell without previous formal notice and demand.—Mean.
Kindcreley and Melina, for the defendant, contended that the
defendant was justified in the COntiO he had taken.—Mr.
Turner is to rep.y on Saturday.

Be the

. of besot

BINILNY V. ROOEIIIION.—INJONCTLON.—COPYRIGHT.—
Mr. Bethel and Mr. Millets moved. on behalf of the
plaintiff, who is proprietor of the well known publication
called " Bentley's Miscellany," for an injunction ex part* to
Terrain the defendant, who is the proprietor of a periodical
called the " New Bello Assemblde," from copying into his
publication any articles from the plaintiff's work. It was
stated that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the copy-
right is al! the articles in the " Miscellany ; " that amongst
others there was one article signed " Romer," which was
copied verbatim into the defendant's paper, and the name
Vsigned to it was " Romer " Matted of "Romer."---The
ice-Chaneellor having compared the two publications,
panted the injunction.
THE ORM te WISTERN RAILWAY V. THII BIRMINGHAM
AND OXFORD CONIPANT.—MarION TOR AN INJUNCTION.—
This case now comes on upon a motion for an injunction in
the terms of the prayer contained in the bill for specific per-
formance to restrain the Birmingham and Oxford Company
and their directors from entering into any agreement for a
lease, use, or occupation of the Birmingham end Oxford
with the London and North Western Railway, or any other
company, and from dealing with the railway or disposing of its
moneys, property, or effects, without the approbation of the
plaintiffs, and from passing or giving effect to any resolution,
or doing any other act for the purpoee of preventing the pay
neat of the call of 61. per share as in the bill mentioned, and
from doing or omitting to do, any act, the doing or omission
of whkh might be a breach or violation of the agreement of
the 12th of November, 1846, or the 2nd of January, 1847.—
Mr. Bethell opened the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs,
and restated the facts which have already appeared upon the
demurrer to the bill, and commented upon various affidavits
made in support of the motion, but had not concluded his
address at the rising of the court.

Before Vice-Chancellor Knight true.
SIBBIRING S. Haat BALCARRIB.—SECURITYPOR COSTS.
—The plaintiff in this ease described himself, in the bill, as
late of Blackrod, in the county of Lancaster, but now work-
ing on the railway lice between Sheffield and Manchester.—
Mr. 3. V. Prior, for the defendant, moved that the plaintiff
might be ordered to give security for costs, on the ground of
the above description being insufficient.—Mr. Hargrave, for
the plaintiff, submitted that the description was as definite
as If the plaintiff had been described on of some large parish
'imply; in which cue no security for coils could be re-
quired, and that at all events the bill might he amended.
The Vice-Chancellor wee clear that the description was in-
sufficient, but gave the plaintiff leave to amend, on payment
of all the costs of the amendment and of the motion.
CHAMBERLAIN' C. BUTTON.—RESTRAINT ON TRADE.—
The plaintiff and defendant had carried on business in part-
nership at Bermondsey, as surgeons, apothecaries, chemists,
and aceouchenrs, but the defendant was alone qualified to
practise as a surgeon and apothecary; his partner confining
himself to the two last branches of the business. They
dissolved partnership, by agreement, the defendant receiving
from the plaintiff a bill of exchange for 1501., and agree-
ing not to practise as a surgeon or apothecary within the
parish of Bermondsey for three years. The plaintiff now
sought to restrain him from practicing in contravention of
this agreement, and, by his affidavits, stated that he (the
plaintiff) was about to quell), himself to practise as a surgeon
and apothecary Mr. Cairns now moved for an injunction
accogly.—Mr. E. Montagu, for the defendant, contended
that such an agreement could not be enforced, being in re-
straint of trade, except so far as the plaintiff could avail
himself of it. Here he could not practise himself at all as a
surgeon and apothecary, and if a person in such a
situation could restrain another from practising, the
malt might be that a district might be left without a sur-
geon, which was contrary to the principle of all the cases,
one of the last of which was " Malian v. May" (13 Xenon and
Wehby, 511).—The Vico-Chancellor said there was so much
doubt in the case, that if the defendant would undertake not
to deal in any manner with the bill of exchange for 1501,,
without leave of the court, his Honour would refuse the in-
ion until the plaintiff bad established, by an action at
law, the legality of the agreement.—The defendant agreed to
this course, and the terms for bringing as action were
settled.
HOMBLIMLET e. SHILIWBRURY AND BIRMINGHAM RAIL-
WAT COMPANY.—INTERIX ORDER.—Mr. E. F. Smith ob-
tained, ex parte, an interim order restraining the defendant,
from commenting their works upon certain lands of the
plaintiff, being Nos. 284, 286, and 288 upon the plans. The
affidavits stated that the parties bad been in treaty for the I
purchase of the lands, but that the company entered before I
the completion of the purchase or payment of the purchase-
money.
Before Tice-Chancellor Wigram.
MORRISON IP. WILIINB.—POLICY OP ImmiAlven.—
BVICIDE.—This MAO Came before the eoart, the plain.
tiff, the officer of the Britannia Life Assurance Com-
pany, showing cause against dissolving the injunction. The
Animators had been granted to restrain an action at law,
brought by the executors of a Mr. Wilkins against the com-
pany for the recovery of 2.9991., for which Wilkins had in-
sured his life, en the 12th of February, 1847. In that
month, and late in the preceding year, Wilkins bad insured
his life in other offices to the amount, altogether, of 20,0001.
The policy had been assigned by Wilkins to La Sens. They
had marred each other's sisters, and were on terms of the
=t intimacy. By his will, dated Feb. 26 last, Wilkins
pointed La Sens his trustee and residuary legatee.
On the 18th of March Wilkins died at his house at Wilton-
street, Belgniveesquare, from supposed suffocation from a
charcoal fire in his bedroom. The eircumstanees were de-

tailed at the time of the coroner's inquest. The office re-
fused to pay the amount to La Serre, the assignee, without
proof of the debt from Wilkins. The action bad been
brought by La Sent in the name of the executors.—The ease
was now argued upon the question whether the injunction
should be dissolved, Mr, RomiUy, Mr. Glasse, and Mr.
Cairns being heard in support of It ; and Mr. Roll and Mr.
Greene contra, not being called upon.—His Honour decided
that the injunction must be dinolved.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nos Pnros.—Before Lord Denman and a Special Jury.
THE QUERN O. CUTLIR.—Tan PATENS FOR CONSTRUCT-
ING TUBULAR FLEW FOR STEAM-ROILERE.—TINI was a
proceeding by mire fades to repeal letters patent granted in
November, 1841, to the defendant, for improvements in the
construction of welded iron tube, used u flues for steam-
boilers, and in constructing the tubular flues of steam-
boilers of coated iron tubes. The specification of the defend
ant's patent claimed-1. "A mode°, welding iron or steel
tubes by drawing them through dies or between grooved rolls
when and at the game time so drawing such tuber en men-
drela, the mandrel being a necessary and important part of
the mechanical apparatus in producing the welding." 2.
" The welding of you or steel tubes, by hammering upon a
mandrel at the same time I em drawing the tube from the
fire, along *mandrel, so that the tube is welded on and
drawn over a mandrel at one process." 3. " The applies-
eation of either iron or steel tubes, when coated
with copper, brass, or other alloys of copper, in the
construction of tubular flues for steam-boilers." 4.
" The application in the construction of tubular flues of
steam boilers of welded iron, or steel tubes which have been
drawn through a circular hole or die, or between rollers, and
which have been drawn over a mandrel for the purpose of
smoothing the external and internal surfaces of the tubes,
and for regulating the thickness of the metal."—The Attor-
ney-General, with whom were Mr. Mill, Q.C., and Mr.
Hmdmarch, appeared for the prosecution, and impeached
the patent on the ground' that all but one of the alleged in-
ventions of the defendant had been known before; that the
invention to which his claim was not disputed, the first
above-mentioned, called colddrawing, was a failure; andthat
the specification was bad for vagueness.—A great number of
witnesses were tailed to support the ease for the prosecution,
which was brought to a close about half-past 4 o'clock.—
Serjcant Talfourd, with whom were Mr. Whitehurst, Q.C.,
Mr. J. Henderson, and Mr. Webster, for the defendant, then
applied that the case aboua be adjourned.—The learned
judge consented, and the trial was adjourned accordingly to
this =ruin.