The Express.
London, England, 1847-06-23 00:00:00

Olf'fillg FOUNDLTIONII OP CPERINCt3I F.
11F.NT
—The Anorstereeneral, with whom were Sir
Thenger, Q.C., the Attorney-Ovneral for the Duchy of
Lanesster (Mr. T. F. Ellis), Mr. Peacock, and Mr.
F. L. Gower, opened the defendant's CVO, which,
under the aeteral technical forms of denial of the
plaintiff's title to the foundations, custom, mentiption,
and user, amounted to this: —The defendant is the
lessee of the Crown as owner, in right of the Deny of Lea-
nder, of the manor of Newcastle-wider-Lyn, in the county
el Stafford. There is a custom to work the mines within that
manor, without nodes or warning, in such mode as the
mown or the crown's lessee shall please, on making compen-
sation for the surface damage done by making the entre,
end no other. This custom extends to all the mines within
the manor, whether the mineral contained in them is teal or
ironstone ; and, as in ancient times the several payments to
the crown were Ws. Bd. for the coal, as. for the iron, and
BDs. for the herbage, the presumption that the crown would
not grant away that which use necessary for its obtaining
the mast valuable part of the soil is virtually a presumption
that it did not grant away the soil of the foundations when
it granted the surface to the copyholdere. If that were to,
the copyholders had only a license to build subject to all the
contingencies whin might arise from the mining operations
lsennth the surface. Witnesses were then celled to make
apt the defendant's case, which had only proceeded as far as
Ile hearing of the third witness when the court adjourned.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
tem Pairs.—Before Yr. Amnia Williams ana • Special Jury.
RODOEILB O. NCWALL AND ANOTHEII.—TIiz SIIIIPIWILD
CvrLEaT.—The Attorney General, Mr. Martin, Mr.Berjeant
Channel, and Mr. noggins for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Cham-
bers, Mr. Serjunt Murphy, Mr. Sajcant Wilkins, and Mr.
Cowling for the defendants. The plaintiffs in this cue were
Mews. Jteeph Rodgers and Sone, manufacturers of cutlery
in Sheffield, and the defendants wen Mears. Newell, knife
and razor manufacturers at Sheffield, and W. Rodgers, a
knife-grinder in the same town. The action was brought to
establish the right of the plaintiffs to a certain distioguishing
mark upon their knives, which it was alleged the defendants
had imitated. Nominally the plaintiffs claimed compensa-
tion in damages for an injury which they had sustained by
reason of the defendants having used the mark alluded to ;
but in reality the case resolved itself into • question as
to whether or not the defendants had marked their
knives in such a manner as to lead to the belief
that they were the manufacture of the plaintiffs. The
declaration stated that the plaintiffs were the miutufao.
toren and sellers of large quantities of penknives and pocket
Wives, which they stamped with • crown between the
initials V.R., or those of the reigning sovereign, and the
words "J. Rodgers and Sons" written thereunder ; and that
the penknives and pocket-knives were so marked in order to
denote that they were the articles of cutlery prepared, manu-
factured, and made by the plaintiffs, and to distinguish them
from goods manufactured by other persons. It then went on
to say that " the defendants, intending to injure the plain-
tiffs to the sale of their knives, did, on the Ist
of January,
1643, and on divers other days, wrongfully, knowingly, and
fraudulently prepare, manufacture, and sell 100,000 pen-
halves and 100,000 pocket knives, in imitation of those ma-
nufactured by the plaintiffs and marked them for the pur-
ple:, of denoting that they were manufactured by the
plaintiffs. The defendants plaided not guilty, and the
Prue to be tried was directed by the Vice-Chancellor,
to whom an application had been made in the year 1843 for
n injunction to restrain the defendants from doing that
hich the plaintiff now charged them with. In order to
opport the plantlike ass • vast number of witnesses were
ailed to pewee that the piebalds were the only firm known
as "J. Badgesad Bow," and that theirs was the only
wary dietiarthised by tinsmith V. R. and a crown. These
editions seershted he the most part of persons engaged in
the enrAmy mis ha ilkeilisid ; some of them as manufactu-
res, others as sameimmte, mid • great many as journeymen.
The eitiatt oftbair Isadatamy was to show that according to
the nage and pmedes of the trade the plaintifh had snub-
Raid an embrerlikt to the mark in question ; and evi-
lest* was also adios& with the view of proving that the
delindants had mated oartaha orders in such a mouser as
to sassy the impeesdoo that the goods they sold were those
of*, plan" Joseph Rodgers and Sons.
Os the part it the iehmileitts no witnesses were called,
bat it was esedembd ment em hatically that the mark
&had by the "Wadi fa their was saientially
west hem that whieb they bed dessribed is their cards.
In the notice to the rads atatabeed in these iserds, the
stated diet die words " Redeem, cutler to their
" wen sammisi vim the Modes of their knives, in
~a errto the resin. ankle s and then followed
" • aidion " W the offset that the knives ware " not WA
Oh. Vamped withßodgers, cutler to their Majorities?* ar
with the inn et " J. Rodgers and Sass, on the Usk
Sweet" It was urged, moreover, that the plaintiff's
eihissed no lea than ibarteen different ways of using their
mow upon erodes of their manufacture, and that
the effect of so nary distinguish' marks would be
reimvent any pe
mums
whose name was from h
o lling
with that mum hem Assam breac sef
the 1
deuce was, that, is pok* of het, the piebelilb were not
the tidy knife aawahstmere ia Shield 11 the same
et " J. Rodin@ mad ilem," bat thud theiMaist, Wm.
Jimliers, wee biome *member of a ha knows by the
et " Jahn (or J.) Rodgers sad Be—". The learned
who
object the j eassimied Ms speech by
that the object of the was, toes tablish •
by which they might awed in destroying the
rape Li of their rivals in trade who were approaching
them is the estimation of the peddle. Messrs. Newell were
most reepectalols and prosperous men ' • and Wm. Rodgers,
their co-defendant, was an industrious man, who had risen
by his own exertions to • good position in the trade.
hay might have sold articles marked with " V. R." and a
awn, but they hail not done so with any fraudulent
Einasmuch as it was quite clear from the evidence of
cif the witnesses that the came mark was used by
persons in the trade. Moreover, it was not proved
dinii the plaintiffs had sustained any damage through the
ddindants, but, on the contrary, it appeared that for the
lest eve or six years they had been increasing in preaperity.
Mr. Justice Williams, in summing up, said the law was,
thaw Man had a right to sell his own goods under a false
that they were the goods of another man. It
111Trilasika alleged violation of that rule of law that the
preemie action was brought. The plaintiffs must therefore
make sot, to the satisfaction of the jury, that there was such
it resemblance between the mark described in the declare-
gptvie., the "V. R." and a crown and the mark
by the defendants, as was calculated' to lead an
ary
perms to behave that the defendants' knives were
plaid.? mennhasre. If they were satisfied upon
Mt poisLanstana pressed to inquire whether the defend-
ant, did represeat,by means of this similarity, and
with an in to deceive, that the knives they, sold were
made Ey the limirdilk. If both these propositions were
made mit, their version snot be for the plaintiffs ;but if the
plaintiffs had Idled la establishing either of them, they must
find for the deleadants.
The jury deliberated he • shed time and returned • ver-
dict for the plaintiffs ; damage% 40s.
The trial lasted two days, and did not terminate until
seven o'clock in the evening.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
sittings In BMW.
GOLDIMIT V. 1111AOIN.—EXTIM JUDICIAL 0141111,1,-
TIMIS OP JUDO=.—WITHDRAWAL OP COUNSEL.—NOW
TRIAL.—This was an action brought by a young lady for a
breath of promise of marriage, which on the first trial re-
salted in a verdict for 3001. Afterwards a new trial was
granted, on the ground of surprise, on condition of the pay-
ment of cons and the amount of the verdict into court.
Under these circumstances the cause stood for trial before
the Chief Baron, at Guildhall, at the recent sittings ; and on
a question being put to his lordship at four o'clock whether
he would take it at that hour of the day, his lordship said,
among other matters, that he had seen the affidavit& used by
the defendant on the rule for a new uial, and therefore knew
his one, and added that he thought it amounted to
insanity to call witnessu in such a rase. This
remark drew from the counsel for the defendant,
Mr. Cockburn, a protest; and on the following
morning he, when the cause wu celled on, applied to the
Chief Heron for a postponement of the Uial, an the ground
that the observation so used by the leaned ynde• on the pre-
vious day was likely te prejudice the defeadeare ere with
the jury. His lordship, on that mane, repeated his re-
mark as to the insanity of cabs names in such a ems,
and aceompanying it with some general observations as tothe
chemeter eliedu seas I. general refused to accede to the
ZiAllln • yeelpesement. Mr. Cockburn then with-
at hie eon, wed the ore proceeded u an uncle-
/Mad one, rembing in a meet ibr 4001. This rule for a
new nil wee norwarie anoint by the defendant, on the
peed that ha lad been jutted in withdrawing from the
trial, new the penny eitnenesese Mee ease, and now
Mr. Was dewed mom pint the Me. He appeared
licr • hay wbs asst fiat net to bins in the trainee-
MM. IBM bad 'dmd bat presents her just claim
apes the delherint he As way, and ought not to be
made to walks he the esta~, if say bad taken place.
The mle medd only be ludo absetate on payment
of orb by dui sfrimilismt, who was alone the cause of the tan-
car Them wee seeing objectionable in the .314er...-
time tithe Mann Chief Baron, for they bad reference to
the general chezeder Omsk awe, and could not have been
understood as nein any leering on the particular case be-
fore the court. Many seek remarks were to justify learned
counsel in withdrawing from court, there would never be a
trial without such applicadoos as the present; for it was ira-
=te ionise a saes in which fallible beings, whether
or imprela. might not be shown to have said some-
thing whisk had better be omitted.—Mr. Cockburn, on the
calm' Ind. hand that he was wanted to a new trial. The
deamisestleil eat ben need base the jury, and he had
been induced to absent Idmeelf In (=sequence of the extra-
Janda remarks which fell hem tietisVawho was about to
try the cause. The neon fa was one which
Mai not bat have Edna as ears of the attendant
jams, en sr from the judgment-seat, and prejudged
the propmed damn as inane and hopeless. It was
Ink to. at a tine when the judge was not
Mesa of the stow • judge red no eight so to express
Ilimeeld—bellen the sane was inn ea at all events. When
the*" was tats ace, the penes were bound to submit
te soy resseloo to the nine which the judge might
deem it neer to make. Bat this was a very ditfrrent cue
Indira; boa when las homed Chief Baron, on his attention
Ming Ewen to the . stesdkeiabie remark, reiterated it
within es the following morning, he (Mr.
coital* eillt=saldwrit 1006 d in withdrawing from
coati tionsion wallmidtbil that the defendant we
talltbd Is a yaw Idol. ea sash if any, as the rout
inigt libriealttalgesft
ttelalti—tl72rikeitßedarZP:4.., after
Liao ftimet earleiklases. est Ste rule might to be
snip ate leas fin • as* kik It nut be as ate pay-
nand of tole Ni •p rant Ms emit et 1004 la silliSon
to the Ina OW, NM to, lir rem Agmheat Ws
an a of yid` INAr eimmilims or the Chid
Dimes et lam ley tdise tls Mg had mask bellor