The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-20 00:00:00

• lab) intelligence.

mince. His Honour had requested the taxing masters to
state to him what was the practice of the office in regard
to bills of costs, the taxation of which had not been com-
pleted. The masters had all certified that in acting upon
the orders of 1812 it was the practice to consider that the
per tentage was due on so much of the bills as had been
taxed, whether the parties took out the certificate or not.
IC he were to take a differe it view of the que,tien from
this it would be a very great inconvenience to solicitors.
, It would then be the duty of the taxing masters to require
the whole of the p-r ecntage to be paid in advance on all
the bills, and afterwards return the difference. This would
be a heavy tax on solicitors. The motion that the taxing
master might be ordered to proceed with the taxation with-
out previou, payuient must, therefore, he dismissed, but
without costs.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAY.
Savona ma Lonna dome= or Aerial.
MOSISON V. MOAT.
Lord Justice Lord Cranworth stated the opinion of the
court upon this we, which was an appeal against an in-
junction granted by Vice• Chancellor Sir George Turner,
restraining the defendant from selling under the designa-
tion of " Morison's Medicine" soy medicine manufactured
by himself, and also from compounding any medicine ac-
, cording to the secret stated in the bill to belong to the
plaintiff His lordship slid the order of the court had
been postponed in order to afford himself an opportunity of
examining the evidence upon the main question in the
cause—namely, the question by what means the de.
fendant had obtained a knowledge of the secret,
the use of which it was the object of the in-
junction to restrain. If this were communicated to him
by his father in breach of his contract with the plaintiff's
father, the late James Morison, not to divulge it, the in-
junction ought to be maintained, and the same result ought
to follow it it had been acquired by the defendant during
the partnership between him and the plaintiff, for be was
under a covenant as a partner not to divulge the secret.
Now upon examining the evidence he found the balance of
testimony upon this question overwhelmingly strong in fa-
vour of the :plaintiff, and against the defendant. The con-
sequence was that the injunction would he continued, the
plaintiff undertaking to submit to any order the court
might make as to damages, in case the injunction should be
dissolved at the hearing.
Lord Justice Knight Bruce said that probably Vice-
Chancellor Sir George Turner might be induced to appoint
some day in Hilary term next our the hearing of the cause.
Mr. Bethell said the Vice.Cnancellor lead cap :teed him-
self ready to hear the cause on some day an January
next.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LORD FINGALL.—MISS HOWARD'S
CHARITY.—i N VoItMATION
This wit+ an information tiled fur the purpose of carrying
into effect the trusts of a dimity instituted at Pinner, by
Miss Howard, for the benefit of the widows of poor officers.
The Attorney-General, upon having the object of this in-
formation submitted to him for approval, had objected to
sanction it, on the ground that it was unnecessary and im-
proper.
Mr. James, who appeared for the Attorney-General,
now moved that thelinformation might be dismissed as
against all the defendants.

'Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Palmer, for the defendants, ad-
mitted that this was the most proper course that could be
adopted.
Mr. Freeling appeared for the relator, and mid he was
in the hands of the Attorney-General, and could not, of
course, proceed without his sanction.
The A ice-Chancellor then made the order, dismissing the
information against all the defendants, without costs, ex-
cept as to Mr. Lytton Bulltr, one of the trustees of tho
charity, whose costs were to be paid by the relator.

IN THE MATTER OF CAMERON'S STEAM COAL, AND
SWANSEA AND LOCCHOR RAILWAY COMPANY, AND IN
THE MATTER OF THE JOINT STOCK COMPANIES WIND•
iso-up ACTS.

Mama Vica-CtiANczuos Patina.

RE THE JOINT BTIICK-iiI;IIIN0-1.3. LTA AND TOP.
LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM EXTENSION, AND NORTH-
AMPTON, DAVENTET, LEAMINGTON AND WARWICK RAIL-
WAY COMPANY.-BAY'S CAPE.

Upon this motion of appeal, against an order made in
November livit by the Mastsr of the Dolls for winding-up
the company, no counsel or parties appeared in support of
the appeal, whereupon the motion was !truck otf the list,
and costs given as of an übaudontil motion.

Mr. Daniel and Mr. Cole supported it motion, by way of
appeal, from the decision of the Matter making a call of
11. 13s. per share upon the contributories of the above com-
pany who had signed the subscription contract, of whom
those who had paid up the deposit of I/. 7s. Oil. per sharo
were to be allowed that sum on account. The call was
made, in order to provide funds for payment of the costs of
winding-up the company. An order for a call which
had been previously made by the Master to provide tar
these costs, and souse of the debts of the company, had been
discharged on appeal in July last by Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, who thought that before the call was made
the Master ought to have regard to the circumstauce then
alleged to opposition to the call, that the members of tho
managing committee were largely indebted to the company.
The Master, after reconsidering the matter, had made the
call on a class which included Mr. Gay, from which he now
appealed. In support of the appeal it was urged that the
members of the managing committee had expended 10,0451/.
in paying the deposit on it contract Mr a purchase of the
Warwick and Birmingham Canal and the Warwick and,
Napton Canal, a purpose beyond their powers, and consti-
tuting a misapplication of the funds which that committm
was hound to bring back to the assets of the company.
Mr. Matins and Mr. Swift, for the official manager; and
Mr. C. Purton Cooper and Mr. He Get, for contributories
who supported the call, were not heard.
The 1, ice-Chancellor thought thin case was distinguish-
able from '. Hunter's cane" (I Sins. N S., 43-7.), beesuso
there it did not appear that the contributory appealing was
liable personally to pay any part of the costs fur which the
call was made; whereas, in the present case, the appellant
had executed the subscription contract, so that there was
no doubt as to his legal liability, and the only question
was as to the way in which the discretion of the Master
had been exercised in enforcing the liability. was a
discretion with which the court was reluctant to interfere,
and with which it could not interfere without materials
from which it might see that the discretion had been im-
properly exercised. There were no such materials hefore
the court on the present occasion. The eontrihuturica had
been divided into two classes--those who lad signed :mil
those who had not signed the suhscript:on curs ract. The
former were clearly legally liable, and noon them the
call had been made. It had been said that some
among those who formed the managing committee
had received large sums, for which they ought to account,
before the other contributories were called upon to pay any-
thing ; and it had been urged that the Master's finding to
the effect that little could he expected to he obtained trim
proceeding against these contributories, was not warranted
by the evidence, for it was said that the evidence only went
to show that some of them were not in a condition to pay.
There were 1.1 of them now supposing that this was true;
with respect to 7 of them, that circumstance might he mufti-
cleat to warrant the conclusion at which the Master had
arrived. It might he said that proceedings ought to be talc%
in the first instance against the whole Ii; and, if this were
not sufficiently productive, then that it should IN fri/CAted
against the seven, and so on, until the while :1140411t should
be obtained. It was obvious, however, that this would ho
attended with difficulty and delay; whereas, the occasions
for which the call was required might be urgent. The wßeiul
manager was engaged in defending an artiou on behalf of
the company, and in the prosecution of a suit in
equity, both proceedings being units rtaken with the sanction
of the Master, and both being for the general frenetic of tho
contributories—the one Laing undertaken to defend assets,
the other to get in assets belonging to the company. It was
then said that the call now made was inconsistent with the
order of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce made last July.
It did not, however, appear to bee so. On that occasion tho
Vice-Chancellor was of opinion that r. g tril hail nut been
had to the circumstances relating to tic! managing com-
mittee, unit it hail been referred back to the Master in
order that these circumstances might be taken into account.
They had now, however, been fully coon:lend by the
Master, who hail exercised his discretion with reference to
them. Ilk Honour thought that the discretion hatl burn
soundly exercised, and that his Honour in refusing to in-
terfere, was. acting quite in accordance with what
had intimdone by his predecessor. If the claim
against the managing committee shouldat any future time bo
substantiated, the contributories who should pay the pre-
sent call might be entitled to have a portion of it refunded
to them. All the court could at present du was to dismiss
the appeal, the official manager taking his costs out of the
estate.

B.rrtros IN tzN0N.11.94101. 11111011 X Two Low, CIIVICIII.LOIL
Ir iM LONGrOHD.—LtN PETITION.—COIVY HOLD

E,TATE.

•
This was a petition by the next of kin and adminidrators
or the deceased brother of a lunatic, also deceased, praying
fur the payment to them of certain sums of money in court.
In 1798 same copyhold property in Gloucester was devised
to Thomas Longford, the lunatic, by his father, the estate
being for the lives of Thomas and his brother George. A
sum of about 7001. was paid into court in the time of Lord
Eldon as purchase money by Lord Itcdesdale. George
Longford died in 1831 (the lunatic having predeceased him),
and his representatives now asked for payment to them of
the sum of money in court. Mr. Rodwell, who made the
application, said that it was made with the consent of the
next of kin.

The Lord Chancellor remarked that the petitioners de-
scribed themselves as the executors of the brother of the
lunatic. Now the brother predeceased the lunatic, and
there was consequently no estate after the death of the
latter. however, if all parties consented he saw no objec-
tion to granting the prayer of the petition. The petition
must be amended, and the matter mentioned on another.
occasion.

L UK THE ST. MARYLTAIONE JOINT STOCK BANKING
COMPANY-Ex P %KIP BUSK AND PARKINS.
. .

These two appeals from orders of the late Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, which have been before the court within the
last few days, and reported, were this morning resumed.
The question is, whether Messrs. Busk and Parkins ought
to be included in the list of contributories to the above-
mentioned company, notwithstanding their having retired
from the concern many years back.
Mr. Lloyd basing replied,
The Lord Chancellor said that he had not much doubt
upon the point, but would look through the papers and give
his judgment before the court rose for the holidays.
Ilatmv o. THE EAST AND WEST INDIt HOCK AND Btu-

MINOZIAM J uNcriox RAILWAY COMPANY.

Counsel were proceeding with this appeal when the court
rose. It involves engineering questions with respect to
preservation of lent in crossing the plaintiff's mu:works,
of little interest save to those concerned.

Ramat nu Marta or roa Mu.

COL FELL O. TAILO3-PEENTON C. COLLETT.-COLLETT

r.

These cases, which arc involved in and dependent one
upon another, were heard together. The hearing was com-
menced on Tuesday, was continued on Wednesday and
Thursday, and concluded to-day.
The main question involved in them all was as to the
validity of a mortgage of 6,0001., subsidiary to which were
various others as to the valiity of several MOrtgalit•Q
effected on this security. Collett, who was a man in humble
circumstances, claimed in right of his wife a fourth part of
the sum of 30,3001., which was the subject of a suit in Chan-
cery, " Collett v. Monte." Being in want of 1,0001. to
carry on the suit he applied to the defendant Ker,
an attorney, by whom he was introduced to Connop,
another di fendatit, us a person who could advance him tliu
money. Connop in his turn introduced him to Mr. Finch,
another attorney, and also a defendant, who was entitled,
so cestui quo trust, to 1.3 acres of building land at Barnes.
Finch offered to make an arrangement by which Collett
should purchase part of the building land for 6,0011., pay-
ing fur it by mortgaging his expectancy in the fund in
Chancery. This Collett agreed to do, and the land was
conveyed to him by Preston, Finch's tru-tee, and Preston
then borrowed on this security for 6,0001., 7001. from Mr.
Taylor and 2,7001. from Mr. Cockell, out of which sum,
advances to the amount of 1,0001. wen: made to Collett.
It was contended on the part of Collett that the mortgage
of the fund for 6,0001. was void, on the ground that lend-
ing money to carry on a suit wt.schampetry, and that fraud
had been committed against hint with respect to the
building land, which was represented to be worth
6,0001., but was in reality only worth 7001. On
behalf of the various defendants it was contended
that Ker and Connop were mere agents acting for Collett;
that Finch merely carried out an arrangement by which
both parties were to be benefited—Finch by selling his
land, which was alleged to be worth the amount given for
it, and Collett by procuring the money; thut Preston was
a niece trustee, and that the other parties were innocent
mortgagees.
The 3laster of the Rolls reserved his judgment.

Mr. Morris appeared in support of a similar appeal by
another contributory against the same order of the Master,
upon which a similar order was made, without argument.

COURT OF EXCREQUER—YEsTERDAY.
ammo AT KM Paten AT OWILMAILL.--11110AA TAT Loan CHIRP
Hseux ANL. :Wk.:Lu. JULIA..
GUEST v. WAHRES.—ACTION TO RECOVER CoMeENSA-
TIOS Is DAMAGES FOR FALSE bII.4I%ONMEST.
Thie was an action to recover compensation in damages
for false imprisonment. The circumstances of the case
were substantially these: Some time in the year 1510 the
defendant, Mr. Warren, a dentist, who resided in George-
street, Hanover-square, became a party to a deed of ar-
rangement or partnership with a Mr. Browne, of Putney,
Mr. Hail, a solicitor, and a person mined l'arry, to obtain
patents for, and to carry out, certain de signs and Inv, a-
tams which it was believed would prove very lucrative.
One of the inventions was a box for envelopes, which Wilt
to be made after the model of the Crystal Palace. In
order to carry out this speculation it was necessary to ma-
nufacture a quantity of toots and other imple-
ments of a costly description, and pr.snises were
taken at Brentford with that view. The plain-
tiff, who was a friend of Mr. Browne, was enguged on
the Jth of March in the present year as a clerk on time-
keeper at the factory, at IL per week ; Browne giving him
a written authority to act in that capacity fur one year cer-
tain. It appeared that some disagreement arose shortly
afterwards between the parties to the deed ; and, on thu
12th of April, the defendant gave the plaintiff notice to quit
his employment. The plaintiff refused, alleging that ho
had a year's engagement front Browne, hut ultimately
;veed to go, if a few days were given him to prepare. The
plaintiff then removed all the finished tools from the
store-room to the work-shop; and having locked the
door, took the key with him. On the night of
the 13th of April, Mr. Browne and Mr. 11311 went
to the factory, and, on boding the tools locked up in the
workshop, opened the window and curried them away in a
cab, the plaintiff assisting in removing them to the vehicle.
Mr. Browne gave the ,plaintiff a written indemnity for
taking away the tools. At an early hour on the morning
of Monday, the 11th of April, the defendant came dawn to
Brentford, and on finding that the tools were missing
called in a pu:ice officer, :and told him to arrest the plain-
tiff for a burglarious robbery of the premises. The plain-
tiff remonstrated, alleging that he lid the authority of
Mr. Browne far what h : had done, but the defendant said
that the plaintiff was his servant and not a servant
under any partnership, and that he had been a party
to the robbery. The plaintff was then taken to
i the station-house, and after several remands was ultimately
brought to trial at the Old Bailey, when he WAY discharaed,
after the statement of the case for the prosecution, the Re-
corder stating that the matter was a partnership squabble,
and that it would be a waste of time to try the prisoner.
During these transactions th, defendant commenced pro-
ce,dings against Hall, Browne, Parry, and the plaintiff, for
a conspiracy, but the indictment was not proceeded with.
The plaintiff then brought 'ha present action to recover '
damages tor the alleged false imprisonment.
Several witnesses were then called in support of the plain-
tiff's case, including the plaintiff himself, and they proved
the facts we have already stated.
Mr. Serjeant Shcc then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant, and said when they had heard the case, which he
should lay before them, they would think that his client
was entitled to a verdict. Ile would show that the plaintiff
was not the servant of Browne, Parry, or Hall, but that he
was the servant of Warren, and of nobody else, and that the
_ plaintiff well knew that the property taken away was not
their property, but the property of Mr. Warren, who alooo
Boom Vien-Cnareczeroa fka It. Knizaanier. had an interest in it. The fact was that Mr. Warren had
HALL V. LATIL—PHACTICE OF THE Cover As TO Cosis got connected with needy persons, and that the deed of
OF TAIATIoN. partnership, alluded to, although apparently a deed of
In this suit 20 bills of Costa had been previously taxed, 1
partnership to all the world, was not in fact
I
but the taxation had not been completed, nor any certificate a deed of partnership among these persons them-
taken out. The parties had since agreed to compromise selves. The defendant was the only man of substance of
the suit i and, on the 25th of June, 11411, an order was made the party, and he was the person whe had hired the pre-
in the cause fur the taxation of costs. The taxing master 'nisei, who had engaged the workmen, and who had paid
refused to proceed under the order until the fees and per• them. The written engagement which Browne had given
tentage on the other bills should be first paid. Mr. to the plaintiff in February, 1851, was altogether unknown
Cooper, on behalf of the parties in the suit, admitted that to the defendant, who did not employ him until the month
there had been a partial taxation of the farmer bills, but of March. With reference to the deed of partnership, it
it had never been completed, nor had any certificate of hail no reference whatever to the manufacture of tools,
the taxing master been obtained. It was submitted, under but related to the patenting of the designs, and the subse-
these circumstances, that the parties were not bound to quent manufacture of the articles.
pay the per centaae. In support of the defendant's case, the defendant 2..
Mr. Taylor appeared for the taxing master. many other witnesses were called, and they s ' ea ~
The Vice-Chancellor said it was clear that the taxing the facts stated by Mr. Serjeaut Slice en his a . ~ ':, ,
masters might require the per centago to be paid in ad- jury. r../ s'.,l - '..,.!‘ At
..' r ~, A
'.,-.0.,
i (4-..it7+‘ 'V ;.
\ -AT
_ . . .

lIINAM C. LEWISTON.

In this case en injunction had been obtained to restrain
the defendant from selling aromatic fuseeg' in imitation of
aromatic fusees manufactured by the plaintiff; and for
which the plaintiff has a patent.
Mr. Eldertou now stated that the defendant hadcontinued
to sell the fuseui nutwitlistaiiding the injunction, and he,
therefore, moved that he be cumniitted to prison. l'laintiff's
fusee had " 11ynam " printed on them, and oa those which
defendant sold the name " Hyman " was printed.
The defendant, who is a foreigner, appeared in person,
and produced hit passports, from which it appeared that hii
Christian name was Hyman, and he stated that be had
manufactured fasces, and put his name on them, fur 13

years.
The Muter of the Rolls said it was evident, from the
manner in which the name " Hyman " was printed on the
fuzes s•dd by the defendant, that there was a colourable
imitation of those of the plaintiff. However, as the de-
fendant was a foreigner, and was, perhaps, nut aware of the
effect of the injunction, the matter should stand over till
Tuesday, in order to give the plaintiff an opportunity to
explain to him that he must not infringe upon his right.
CONSTABLE V. FALLAN.

Mr. Iladdan applied to the cotttiiibring up the de-
fendant, who was now in custody. Defendant had at-
ter.ded the court today upon this motion, and on his way
home from the court he had been arrested by a writ of
. .

capias ad satisfacieuilum, issued out of the aurt of Ex-
chequer. He had beeu taken by the officer to a lock-up
house in Cursitor-street, the keeper of which declined to
bring him up.
The Master of the Rolls made an order for a writ of
habeas corpus.

Biros. VICCXUANCELLOI 'Emma.
MiI..NV.B. v. HAIL/MON.—PATENTS FOR FIRE PROOF
Si FP.N.

Mr. Rolt (with whom were Mr. Webster and Mr. Haw-
kins) moved to commit the defendant for the breach of an
injunction, which restrained him from making or vending
certain fireproof safes on a form and principle which should
be an infringement of the plaintiff's patent for the exclusive
manufacture of such safes. The principal question was
whether the safes sold by the defendant were er were nut
an infringement of the plaintiff's patent, or whether the
safes were not lawfully made and sold under a subsequent
patent, called" Tan's" patent. There wu also a contest
upon the affidavits on a coUateralquestion,—whether a par-
, titular safe which had been sent to the premises of a person
named Thomason had been lent or sold to him.

„._
The Solicitor-General (with whom was Mr. Shebbeare)
appeared for the defendants.
The question upon the infringement of the patent ap-
peared to depend on the effect to be given to the language
of the specification of Tann's patent, which stated that the
chambers and fissures surrounding the safe were to be filled
with ground alum and gypsum, ground and reduced by
beat to a state of liquefaction, so that it should emit no
steam in case of its being exposed to the strongest heat.
The patent of Milner, the plaintiff, on the other hand, was
founded on the principle of producing steam from the ma-
terials with which the chambers were filled when exposed
to strong heat, and, by the effect of this moisture, preserv-
ing the papers or contents of the safe.
The case, which occupied the whole day, was adjourned
at the rising of the court.