The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-25 00:00:00

MILITARY.

T. CIALIAN MAIL loringe 3.7;1;1 ""'''''''""," military news. The
following additional reliefs have been ordered :-3rd IMO. Light
Gentry from Iltikarpore to Sliotwore • Lit Ca. Ist Balta. Artd.
key from !Cede to Ahmednuggur; Sholapore ; Est do. 2nd I
do. I Kolapore ; 3rd do. to Ahniedraggur, , 4th do. to Cuteh ; 3rd
do. Golunlorre from Catch to &rods: Sth do. 4th do. Lean
Bernie to Ahmednaggur ; 12th Ilegt. Native Iniiantry from Mind. to
Bolinvlre ; 13th do to Belgium ; 14th dab KoLtpore ; lath dc from
(Nail to Belgium ; 17th do. from Minds to Dharwar ; IL M. 17th
Foot to Bombay ; 111. 11111 do. to Poona.
ILrionmeorts Asa PIOIIOIIOAS insorsern nom DrATATtII 01'
tare IVIIIILAND MAIL Os I/Tr. 4 —3O Dragoons Lleut and Adju-
tant sulliran has leave to Cirketta fur there months, and England for
two 3.iars, on private affairs. Cornet Kauntse to act as adjutant
411/1111. the absented Sidlivan.—lnfantry : 17th Rent Easign Nrynoe
has trim to Bombay on medical ceetificate.—::st do. Lieut. *lmage to
Ciatoina to: three months, and to England for two years on medical
certifLate.-29th do. Meier Smith is at CAlllllloff on medical cretin,
cate.—bOth do, (Milos), Lleut. G Itistand has leave to Rooney in an.
tenpin= a furlough to Burope.-12ne1 dn. Captain Herbert is at
Cawnpore on leave on medical certificate-74th Olighlerulres), Lied.
lionnerie to England for two years on private affnre.-3 Alt do.
Orden-1 from *lade to Poona.-91th do., Llcut ICCArthy has been
ordain' to join the left wena at eremite
his LIS STAFr.—ltrier C. 31. Bird has leave to Bangalore and
the Pe. 'Menet., preparatory to ipplyMpt for furlough to Europe on
private sfaun.
Be...Oman.—Major.Gcneral E. 0. Riper allowed two years'
leave lathe Cape diked lope on medical rotineate. Milor.General
sir IL G. Smith, Bart, has leave to visit the Ih esideney oa medical
oerti&ate preparatory to ap,ilying for a furlough to Europe.
The Nehru Alfas states that Col. Vela will son return to his !
dudes as Deputy Quarts-Master General, and that a captain of
January Is likely to be appointed private secretary.
A letter horn Ferompore states that her Majesty's 82nd regiment of
Foot woe to lease that station on the 24th. The number of volunteeas
into othsr corp. (chiefly the 53rd loot) amounted to 237. The 53-11
would, it was suppofted, go into quarters, and her Majesty's loth, who
hod reached the station, were to remain thine until by thee orders.
The 14th N.I. left Emarepore few Itirsapore on the 2uth.
HFOI4. TING.

IS to I apt Canna 0144444;74: Wt. lam The leorb
tre. ty) It— t IriteCen
SOO 17 mut (.) K I CH= coo.
-0— 1 Antler 44 I Whlhrou

3:— I Etlo.gc booth (t. 401 30— 1 Jolley \Ores (.)
1 to:) 1400— II Dol. (4.)
33 I P•otit (.. 40 t 01) I,ooo II lobed:ten 04
33 1 Iltwoort SW —23 Dawson% lot (4)
Nothir s &se on Derby or Oaks; bumbles altogether eery lat.

lab) internacnce.

EQUITY COURTS.—SATURDAY.
__ Before the Lord Chancellor.

STEVENII r. K ;Utile 0 CEMLNT.!
.--INJI,'NCTION.—This was an appeal motion to discharge an
order of the Vice-Chancellor of England, granting an injunc-
tion to restrain the defendant from using a cement in viola-
tion of the plaintiff's patent right, and directing the plaintiff
to bring an action to establish that right at law. The plain-
tiff obtained his patent in 1836, for securing to him the henc-
e t of a process for making cement, the invention of a Mr.
Morten. That patent was amended is 1840. The defendant
obtained a patent for the manufacture of his c-ment in 184.5.
The speciacatient of the patents of both parties claimed for
them respectively new modes of compounding alkali, acids,
aail gypsum, so;os to make a cement whirl) when put on
pillars, 6: c., would taken fine poll,h, so se to imitate marble
in hardness, fineness, and durability. The plaintiff's cement
was made out of the above ingredients separately, while
the defendant professed to mako his from a sub-
stance called borax, in which some of the same ingre-
dients were found naturally combined. The latter's
cement was said to be in very general use, especially
in the British Museum, new Houses of Parliament, &e.,
and the plaintiffs cement was also much used, especially in
some of the new club houses in London, and public buildings
in the country.—Mr. J. Stuart and Mr. ebster, fur the
defendant, in support of the motion, insisted that the speci-
fication of the plaintiff's patent was defective and inconsis-
tent, and on that ground, if there wes no other, the plaintiff
was not entitled to an injunction for infringement of his al-
leged right. They also urged that great, if not irreparable,
mischief would he done by stopping the various public works
in which the defendant's cement was used, as the injunction
was to stand until the plaintiff chose to bring his action, for
which no time was limited. An injunction granted ender
these oireunistances was opposed to the principles which his
lordship bail on many occasions laid down in this court. The
defendant in this case n as willing to keep an amount of the
cement that should be disposed
, of until the plaintiff esta-
blished or failed to estauiish his right by action; and
upon these fair terms, injurious to no party, the
injunction ought to be dissolved.—Mr. Saheb and
Mr. Follett supported the Vioe-Chancellor's order,
first contending that the plaintiff's speeitication was
perfectly correct, and, even if not, a patent right which ex-
isted for twelve years ought not to be superseded upon the
vague allegations of the defendant, whose own specification
emwared to have been copied from the plaintiff's. They
also insisted that the plaintiff's cement was in very general
nee, and that he was prepared to establish his right by action
immediately. Several cases were referred to un both sides,
and the arguments occupied the greater part of Thursday
and Friday.
The Lord Chancellor, in giving his judgment this morning,
said he had read carefully the several specifications for the
purpose of seeing whether the defendant had questioned the
plaintiff 's title on the ground of defective or erroneous spe-
cification of the patent only, or on the ground of non-
infringement of the patent right. He had also looked into
the cases that were tilted in the argument and alleged to be
authcrities for giving a prima facie right to long possession
and enjoyment of a patent. lie collected in the comic of
the argument in this case that an impression prevailed in the ,
profession that he had expressed opinions in eases of injunc-
tion different from the established doctrines of the
court, aa laid down by Lords Loughborough and Eldon.
To see how far that impression was sustained, he
bad looked into the report. of some of his own decisions, as
in " Collard e. Alison," and "Neilson v. Thomson," iu
neither of which, nor in any other case that he remembered,
did he use any expression that could justly give countenance
to the opinion 01:4 ho differed from the long-egtabl ished rides
of the court in such cases, certainly he never did intend to
diffsr from them nor to question their soundness. The opi-
nion that he had at all questioned those long-c,tablished
princip'es arose probably from some expressiens of his to the'
effect, that in caeca of doubt of the right of a party applying
fur an injunction, the court ought to exercise great caution
granting the injunction, lest the party restrained
. while by refs-tog it tho party
might satire? Ln*,narat?la los,
applying wood „bain or no injury. lint w here there
it would
as unjdi establish Atwel
was a n infringement • :a!
ust to tell the partyof to gorig and tia'et his right
at law. Cases in which longjsowession and enjoyment of a
patent right existed came within that rule, and in such easel
the court was not at liberty to exercise a discretion whether
the patent was erroneous or defective. With respect to the
patents in the present came, his lordship examined the soccifi•
cation of the patent of 1836, and he was of opinion that the
right claimed was there set out in very distinct and intelli
Bible terms. His lordship, after adverting to tho ingre-
dients that formed the composition of the cements as stated
in the different spei ificatione, expressed his opinion that
those of the defendant's specification did not substantially
differ front the plainthrs. The defendant bad adopted

d. decent names for the materials of his cement, but torso,
on which he relied as distinguishing his composition from
the plaintiff's, was nothing but alkali and acid existing in
one orrly which the plaintiff used, and d“eribed separately.
If the defendant has, in f=t, professed to make a cement of
the same materials as the plaintiff used, though in a different I
combination, there could hardly be a question of the plain-
tiff's right to the injunction. Indeed, the argument for the
defendant did not proceed so much on his manufacture being
new, as on the invalidity of the plaintiff's specification of
his patent, and the circumstanced brought this case within
the rule of the court for the protection of patent rights of
long enjoyment, without, at the same time, restraining the
defendant from using his manufacture longer than was ne-
cessary for the plaintiff to establish kis right by action. With
this view, his lordship was of opinion that the injunction
ought to stand for the present, and that the plaintiff should
bring his action forthwith, in the Court of Exchequer, where
it was supposed it could be tried sooner than in any other
court. The order of the Vice-Chancellor was therefore
affirmed.

linight Brace.

Coca V. OUSTARD.—EZECUTION or 1 oWER.—HUNrAND
AND WIPE.—BANKRUDTCY.—AmeIia Oiailford being en-
titled to certain freehold lands, in reversion, in fee, married,
in 1821, one Cork. Nn settlement was made before the
marriage, but in June, 1822, a fine was levied of the lands,
to such uses as the husband and wife should jointly appoint,
and subject thereto to the use of the husband in fee; and in
November, 1922, the lends were settled to such uses as the
husband and wife thould jointly appoint ; then to the sepa-
rate 'use of the wife for life without power of an-
ticipation; then to the husband for hie; then to
the children of the marriage, as the husband and wife
should joint'y appoint, and in default of such joint appoint-
ment, as the survivor of them should appoint, and, subject
to such appointment, to the children of the marriage, attain-
ing the age of 21, equal'y in fee, and if all the children
should die under 21, without leaving issue, ther. to the hus-
band in fee. On the Ch March, 1823, a commission of
bankruptcy was issued against the husband. After his
bankruptcy the husband and wife executed their joint power
of appointment (without joining his assignee) in favour of
one Buck. in consideration of 200 f. paid to them by Buck,
fur the purchase of the premises. Buck afterwards became
bankrupt, and his assignees sold and assigned the premises
to the defendant Dastard. In 1827 the tenant for life in
possession died, and the property ceased to be reversionary.
In 1836 the husband died. The bill was Bled on the part
of one of the infant children of the marriage, to try whether
Gustard's security was valid; and that depended on the
question whether the execution of the power by the husband
and wife was • valid execution. Mr. Russell and Mr.
Daniel for the plaintiff said, that this was a pure point of
law on which there was conflicting authority, and therefore
probably his honour would direct a case for the opinion of a
court of law. The lear.ed counsel referred to " Badham v.
Mee," 7 Bingham's Reports. 603, and subsequent cases.
Mr. Swanton and Mr. Ileathtield, for the derendant, said,
that " Badham v, Mcc " hod been overru:ed by the subse-
quent cases. The law was settled, and it was not necessary
to grant a case, at the expense of the present parties, for the
purpose of further st.ttlingthe
His Honour said that he was perfectly ready to decide the
case himself. But as the point was one of considerable im-
portance, and ono which did rot merely depend upon the
particular wording of an instrument, but was of a general
nature, and might govern a great many CANS, he thought,
as there had been conflicting decisions upon the subject, the
plaintiff was entitled to a ease for the opinion of a court of
law. A case was accordingly directed to the Court of
C,mmon Pleas.