The Express.
London, England, 1846-12-23 00:00:00

of its getting there " late rally."—The plaintiff's case having
closed, Mr. Chambers, on the part of the defendant, sub
matted that there was no evith nce to go to rho jury of an
infringement of the patent. The plaintiff, in his specifica-
tion, had divided his claim into several parts, but the main
question to be decided was embodied in part the fifth, which
was as follows: " I also claim the mode of applying wood or
other non-conductor of heat as a means of preventing the
conductieg down of heat into the spirit."—Mr. Serjeant
Byles conceded that the only part of the plaintiff's invention
which be should now submit had been infringed was the
non-conducting medium; the alleged infringement of the
other parts was defensible.—Mr. Chambers went on to say
that the plaintiff did not claim the principle cf using a non-
conductor, but merely a mode or method of applying a non-
conductor. The principle, therefore, being old, the defendant,
seeing that it was one of great importance, had succeeded
in carrying out his object by en invention totally dis-
tinct front that of the plaintiff, as proved in fact
by the evidence of Professor Brandt.—Mr. Cleasby and Mr.
Webster having followed on the came side, Mr. Serjeant
Byles (followed by Mr. Cowling and Mr. Dowdeswell), con-
tended that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury
that the plaintiff's patent, as described in the specification,
had been infringed. True, the interposition of a non•con.
doctor wu old ,• but the plaintiff had invented a mode—in
short, Me mode—of applying it, particularly to a eplrit
lamp, and the only distinction between his method and that
of the defendant was, that the latter had employed the non-
conducting medium at a different part of the ' chain of coin-
manication." It mattered not whether the particular pro-
cess was used in one part of the apparatus or the other ; it
was sufficient for the pleintiff to show that the defendant
had adopted a mode similar to his, of " insulating the
flame," and in so doing had infringed his patent.
The learned Judge said, it was his duty to decide whether
there was any evidence to go to the jury, either of a sub-
stantial or a colourable infringement of the plaintiff's patent.
It was for him to explain the distinction in point of law,
and the question was, whether there was any evidence to
submit to the jury, in deciding that point. Looking at the
specification, and coupling it with the evidence produced, he
wu of opinion that in a claim so large, the plaintiff's patent
could not be said to have been infringed, and that there was
not matter to be submitted to the jury. He thought, there-
fore, that there must be a verdict entered for the defendant.
—The jury, after hearing some further observations from
the learned judge, stated that they found their verdict in
accordance with the directions of his lordship, but that they
were unanimously of opinion that the plaintiff's patent had
been infringed.
The Lord Chief Justice said the jury could not come to
that conclusion without having heard the argument on the
other side.—One of the jurymen replied that they had heard
the evidence as to the infringement.
His lordship remarked that the jury must hear in mind
that it would have been the duty of the learned counsel for
the defendant to point out to them the weight of that evi-
dence, and to show how far it ought to be allowed to in.
fiuenee their minds.—A verdict was then entered for the
defendant, by direction of the learned judge.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
lfm Pam.—Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and a London Special Jury.
LAMERT O. HEATH.—SCRIP CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY AN
ATTORNEY TO A RAILWAY COMPANY, WITHOUT TILE SANC-
TION OP THE DIRECTORS, HELD TO BE WORTHLESS.—This
action, which was the subject of a former trial, was brought
to recover the price paid to the defendant, a stock broker, for
scrip certificates in the Kentish Coast Railway Company, on
the ground that fhey had been issued by Mr. Cur'ing, the solici-
tor to the company ,without the sanction or concurrence of the
directors of that undertaking. Upon the former, as well as
upon the present trial, it appeared that Mr. Curling, who,
like many others, acted in the dou'ale capacity of promoter
and solicitor, persuaded the secretary, whose name was
Richards, to affix his signature to the scrip, and that they
were thus issued with the appearance of authenticity,
even though they did not bear the signatures of
any of the directors. The following were the main
facts of the case: a short time before the railway
panic, somewhere about 2,000 ehares in the Kentish
Coast Railway project were allotted, but in con-
sequence of that notorious event, deposits were paid only
upon 600. The result was, that the directors determined
not to issue more scrip, and to cane, I those then prepared to
be issued. To accomplish this obj ct effectively, they re-
solved not to affix their signatures to any more certificates,
knowing that such documents would be completely valueless
unless they were so signed. Having acted strictly in con-
formity with this resolution, they were under the impression
that the affairs of the company were in a condition to be
wound up with comparative facility, when, to their amaze-
ment,they discovered sometime afterwards, that a much larger
number of scrip certificates than they had issued were in the
market. This discovery led teen inquiry, upon which it ap-
peared that Mr. Curling had caused the plate, off which
the original certificates were struck, to be altered by effacing
that part of it upon which the signatures of the director,
should have been, leaving merely space for the signature of
the secretary. It was thus made to appear that the signa-
tures of the directors were not only unnecessary, but that
they had given their sanction to the certificates signed by the
secretary. A very large number (about 1.000) were con-
cocted in this manner, and sent into the market at a small
premium, notwithstanding the depression which existed
Immediately after the panic. The parties engaged in the
transaction, no doubt, realised something by it, while the
public were kept completely in the dark as to its real cha-
racter. The plaintiff purchased a number of those
shares from the defendant, and on discovering the
mode in which they. had been issued, he insisted
upon having their price refunded. That demand not
having been complied with, an action was resorted to
for the purpose of enforcing it. Upon the former trial, it
was supposed the case was altogether on undefond, d one,
and the jury were directed by Sir F. Pollock to find for the
plaintiff, if they thought the scrip was not genuine. The
verdict having passed for the plaintiff accordinely, a rule
for a new trial was subsequently obtained, upon the ground
that the proper questions for the jury were, whether the
plaintiff had got what he intended to purchase when he
bought the scrip, and whether the defendant, in selling
them, had given what was usually the subject of contract
upon the Stock Exchange. The evidence on this trial was
almost similar to that which was adduced upon the last.
The Attorney-General, with Mr. James and Mr. Hugh
Hill, conducted the present case, by which the foregoing
facts appeared. Three of the directors i f the company
swore that no authority or sanction had been given at any
time, by any of the members of that body, for the issuing of
the scrip in question, and that several months had elapsed
after they had resolved not to issue more, when they dis-
covered that their solicitor 'had got the plates altered and
issued the certificates in the secretary's name. They also
deposed that they had discovered, upon inquiry, that the
scripholders, instead of paying the deposits into the blinkers'
of the company had paid it at Mr. Curling'e office ; so that
they supposed he had received in that way a very large sum.
—Mr. Curling, who appeared in court under n subprena, pro-
duced the subscribers' contract, but not having been examined
by either of the parties, he stated that he was most anxious to
give, upon oath, every explanation of his conduct ; anal he
was prepared to produce every document he had relating to
the affairs of the company.
The Lord Chief Baron suggested that the less he stated the
better.—Mr. Curling complained that his character should
be traduced. and an opportunity denied him of defending
himself publicly.
The I.ord Chief Baron intimated that it would be very
desirable indeed that an opportunity should be afffirded the
gentlematfto defend himself, if he could, but if not, he should
remember that he should abide the consequences.
Mr. Martin, Q.C. (with whom were Mr. Bramwell and
Mr. Wines), contended, on behalf of the defendant, that he
was no party to any of the frauds alleged to have been perpe-
trated ; he was an innocent party, and should be held in no
way responsible for the acts of others, of whom he knew
nothing. The directors, although they did not participate
In the frauds, were legally liable, as their negligence was so
great that any rational person, looking at all the circum-
stances of the case, could arrive at no other con-
clusion than that they had sanctioned the issuing of
those certificates which were now described as fraudulent and
fictitious. The learned counsel also submitted that it was
altogether impossible that thane scrip cc rtificate, could have
been bought and sold in the Stock Exchange market and else-
where for mont'is, at a premium, too, and that the directors
could have continued ignorant of their having been issued.
The Lord Chief Baron (summing up) told the jury that
there were three questions upon which he would take their
11 opinion : Ist, Whether they thought the scrip certificates in
question were fraudulent and fictitious, or genuine scrip, for
which the directors should be held liable; 2ndly, Whether
the director, sanctioned the issuing of them; and 3rdly,
Whether the scrip which the plaintiff purchased and the
defendant sold acquired the character in the market of being
genuine, and was sufficient to induce the jury to believe that
the plaintiff intended to purchase that particular descrip-
tion of scrip. If the jury believed the evidence
that the directors had not sanctioned the solicitor
in issuing it, and that they further believed the directors
had not been guilty of any wilful negligence in preventing
it, the scrip purchased by the plaintiff were undoubtedly
fraudulent and fictitious; they were not the certificates of
shares in the Kentish Coast Railway which the defendant was
directed by the plaintiff to purchase for him, and be should
therefore be entitled to recover. But, if they thought that
they were the scrip of the company, or that the directors
had so conducted themselves as to give them the appearance
of authenticity, or stamp them with their sanction, then the
defendant could not be held liable. Another question for
the jury was, whether those scrip certificates were so before
the public, that a buyer giving directions to purchase
, scrip in the Kentish Coast Railway, when the order
in question was given, got all he had bargained for
when he bought the scrip sold by the defendant,
whether they were fictitious or not,—and the sel-
ler, in selling them, only dealt in what the market
afforded him, for it appeared there were no other scrip certi-
ficates of this rai:way then for sale is the market. The de-
fendant had not those scrip himself, he was merely asked to
buy them ; he accordingly purchased them in the market,
and geld them twain to the plaintiff.—The jury, having
retired for some time, returned a verdict for tha
finding, upon the first point submitted to them, that the scrip
certificates were fraudulent; as to the second, that the direc-
tors had not sanctioned their issue; and, upon the third
point, that the scrip did not acquire such a character in the
Stock Escheatage market, that they should be cone'dered ge-
nuine certificates of shares in the Kentish Coast Railway.
—A verdict for the plaintiff of 4321. 103. was accordingly
of 4* entered.