The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-25 00:00:00

NAVAL.

Farrar w, Too. 20.—A pele-abatZiot to be fo,ned for the mine-
bemire at des.itery from her Nlajerdy's ships. The constables are to I
be elieMbillimm She Marts divas:on, and oee to be stationed at dlr.
IWO Ow. tied dellias, and In other public pla-cs.
Swarm of We Slim st. f., will not navigate the I banners, et., es
elllitlely entered. It le ozpectol that the Sidon will seri- shortly be
Morey impel dosratebess to Liebe.. itirkenheed,
VIM embarked the 27th 11e..A, and will sail to morrow mons-
mailed yeeterday, with troop. for
Odts, et,fr., animal on the 2hal, and Failed shortly after
WM' SIMI far Cork. Lightsin, W., sailei cm the 22nd fpc Liverpool.
amenterve, Yam 21.—Arrotxresers.—Ididshipmais V. Tonne to
Meeter'e-Arstetsat E. Staniereet to Crocodile. Navel
H. Vincent to Mariner. Clerks: B. P. lieatler to St. Vincent;
J. W. °Wills to Terrible. Boatswain*: J. &linen to Mantle..; J.
Ilesers. of Victory, advanced to IA dem Carpenter J. HAM to

tat; iEntriliatitcr.
EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Ocincenor.
Tree Macron TZLEGRANI Cone.txr r. NOTT. At-
Bitola PlXACT.—lsruNcrtoN ite.resitit.—The Lord Chan-
cellor gave his judgment ignas matter, which has been
• argued for several days. It sfes a motion for an injunction
to restrain the defendant from using or disposing of an in-
strument constructed by hit- :be the purposes of an electric
telegraph, on the ground that all or most of the useful parts
of it were pirated from the plaintiffs' telegraphic maehinery.
The plaintsffs had obtained a patent for their invention in
1837, and another (or improvements in 1810, and again for
further improvements in 1812, when they also obtained an
act incorporating them into a company. The defendant
also obtained a patent for bis invention, which is of
recent date. The two telegraphic instruments wet*
much in use on TOUTS, some using the one, some the
other. The Vice-Chancellor, Desire whom the motion for
the injunenin wee first made, refused it, leaving the plaintiffs
to establish their legal title by an action rat law. The motion
labse the Lord Chancellor was an appeal from that decision.
Sie Lordship said the question was of great impoitance,
tip; WOK was one of a very interesting nature, in
ilieneagnence of the discussions and arguments that were held
Is mut His difficulty was, how to apply the rule of the
=te facts not clearly established. Ile had occasion often
in this court to consider and were how the rule of the
wart was to be applied in respect to injunctions in cases in
which the legal right was established ; but where that right
was doubtful it was very difficult and dangerous for the court
to interfere, as there was no eomparieatt between the mischief
that would be done by refusing to interfere, and what might
follow by interfering in a case where it might afterwards
tarn oat that the party in whose favour the court exercised
its jurisdiction bad no right to its protection. 11e, therefore,
said, oa these occasions, that in such ca-os it became the
duty of the court to be extremel cautious in granting
injunctions. It was said that he corned that doctrine further
than any of his predecessors in this court, but he knew he
did not. He did not, ;for instance, carry it so far as Lord
Eldon, who, in the case of " Hill r. Thompson," said he
would not interfere at all in protecting a patent right, unless
in case of lolly previous use, without having that right pre-
viously eatablished at law. He (the Lord Chancellor) would
not my he would refuse interference, or would be disposed
to carry the rule of non inter( ranee so far as 'hat, if a case
requiring it had been before him. The long undisturbed
enjoyment of a thing would give the owner a right against
all the world, but without such enjoyment, even in patent
rights, it would not be safe to interfere by injunction, as it
might afterwards be found that the part' had no legal right.
lie was willing to assume that these pliuntiffs had a right to
all the inventions and matters comprised in their patents,
still it would be rash in him to come to the conclusion that
all these matters were the same fur which the defendant
had obtained his patent, in the face of the effidants of most
eminent scientific persons, who swore that the matters in the
defendant's instrument, claimed by the plaintiffs as their
Meantime, were essentially different from them. The gum.
tion was, whether this court was to interfere and stop the
defendant in what he was doing, before the plaintiffs had
established their title to what they so thawed. Ile was of
opinion that such interference would be rash, after
what these gelit'emen, so much more versed in these
matters, had stated in their affidavits. lie would not
say that these gentlemen were right in their conclusions,
but whether ho himself would be doing right to interfere
before the plaint ffs established their title, was what he had
great doubt of. He would, therefore, do as he had done in
other eases. He was of opinion that the Vice-Chancellor
was right in the conclusion to which he came, and that the
plaintiffs must establish their right at law before the court
would interfere for their protection.
THE HeNGERPORD MARLET COMPANY,. THE CHARING-
CROILS BRIDGE COMPANY.—RIGHT OF
liethell moved for en injunction to restrain the
de▪
fendants from preventing passengers tram the market to
pass over the bridge to the wheal constructed by the plain-
tiffs in the river at the buttress be-tween the first and second
arches of the bridge. The Vice-Chancellor had refused the
injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs did not show
him a legal right to the privileges claimed by them, and this
was an appeal from his Honour. It appeared from the
learned counsel's statements that the market company
derived an increasing yearly income from the number
of persona who passed through to go on board the
numerous boats at these wharfs They had contracts
with the boat companies, by which the latter paid one penny
more for every dozen persons taking the boats or landing
from them. The number had increased almost incredibly
during the years 1814, 1843, and 1949, being estimated in
the lass year at two millions of persons. For the accommo-
dation of the boats and paesengers the plaintiffs had con-
stricted wharf. out in the river, to which seems was to be
had by using part of the bridge, but the bridge company
took it into their heads to prevent f.eraons going on the
bridge without paying, union they showed some badge or
token of their being passengers for the boats. This hindrance
was in violation of their agreement. As the learned counsel
was proceeding, it was stated by Mr. Reit, the counsel for
the bridge company, that LC had just received a communica-
tion that the parties had come to an understanding on some
of the points of difference between them.
The Lord Chancellor suggested some delay, in hopes the
parties might put an end by agreement to all their differ-
maces, and, that suggestion being acceded to, the motion was
ordered to stand over.