The Express.
London, England, 1860-08-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS,

lab Intellistnct.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Arzusr 9.
Their Lorcbihipe at en a oommittee for privileges.

THI DUNDOTNI PUBAGG

This ease, which is a claim of the Right Hon. Theohald
Fitzwalter Butler to the title and dignity of Baron Dun-
boyne in the peerage of Ireland, and also to vote in the
election of representative peers for Ireland, was resumed.
The matter has been for some time before the house, aid
has been reported from time totime in our journal.
Their Lordships now delivered their opinion, and held
that the claim to the peerage had been made out, and also
that the claim to vote for representative peers for Ireland
had been established.
CAIRRCROI4B r. LORIMER.
This was an appeal from the Court of Scission. The ques-
tion involved related to the claim of a body of the Free
Church of Scotland, called the congre6rnon of United
Original Seceders of Carnoustle, to the c arch, manse and'
offices in the possession of a portion of the congregation
under that name, who are the respondents. The cam wm
argued some time mime.
The decision of the court below was now affirmed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIIIT.—Gun.DroaD, Arcarru 9.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Special Junes.)

PLUDLAVI V. N.MUZZAT.

This was an action to recover 961., the Wane/ for royalties
and other charges in eminences with a patent invention
belonging to the plaintiff for the prevention of smoke. The
defendant pleaded that the invention had failed, and on
this ground the claim was resisted.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Hannan were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Mr. Wood, and Mr. Lloyd were
counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, had tad
several inventions for the prevention of smoke in
and the defendant is a very extensive paper rambetarer,
who carries on his business at Garrett-Lae. Wanderers*.
The defendant took possession of these premises in 1864,
and had since expended a very large sum of money upon
them and it appeared that at the tune he took poeseadon
at'ass the plaintiff's patented inventions was in operation,
1111 n WY not found to succeed, and they tried several others,
hut without attaining the desired object. In the course of
the year 1859, it seemed that the plaintiff hod another patent
somewhat similar to the original one, but which was repro-
muted to be a great improvement upon it, and at the close
of that year the defendant entered Into a negotiation with
him, the result of which wee that the plaintiff's patent was
applied to eleven furnaces in Mr. M•Murray's establishment
in the beginning of the present year, and the plaintiff re-
mired Mg. for the alteration. The invention appeared to
consist in the application of doors to the furnaces, which
were mole something upon the principle of a Venetian
blind, admitting a current of air when fuel was put hi, and
by this means mining the combustion of the smoke, the
apertures closing by themselves when this result was ob-
tained. It appeared, however that they did not at all
answer the purpose, and the defendant abandoned the use
of them and was compelled to use Welsh coal, which does
DOA emit any smoke, but which is much more expensive than
ordinary coal, and the payment of the present claim was re-
sisted on the ground that the plaintiff had warranted that
hi. invention would prevent smoke, and as it had failed to
effect that object the defendant was not liable. The
ease on the part of the plaintiff was, firstly,
that he never gave any such warranty ; and, se-
condly, that in point of fact the Invention did
carry out the object sought for, and that the
failure in the present instance was owing to the mouths of
the furnaces being too small. In support of this view of
the case the original agreement for the alteration of the
furnaces was put in, and it appeared that nothing WWI son-
tamed in it relating to a warranty ; but the plaintiff was
merely to make the alteration for a certain sum, and he
himself deposed that he never gave any warranty of the
kind suggested.
The cane on the part of the defendant was that the plain-
tiff, when he entered into the arrangement with Mr.
M'Mumy, guaranteed that the new invention should effect
the object sought for, and that Mr. WMarray should never
more be troubled with smoke ; but it appeared that very
soon after the new doors had been put to the furnaces the
evil was as great as ever, and Mr. Miturray was summoned
to the Wandsworth police-court by the government inspec-
tor and fined for not taking means to prevent smoke at his
manufactory. It was also proved with regard to the
allegation an to the mouths of the furnaces being too mall
to allow the new invention to act properly, that the plain-
tiff bed the entire control of the alterations, and that the
mouths could have been enlarged at a very small expense.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that the
only question the jury had to consider was whether it bad
been established by the defendant that the plaintiff bad
warranted the invention to succeed in preventing !smoke.
Under ordinary circumstances, when a person made use of
a patented article, he was supposed to be acquainted with
its nature ; and if it did not answer the purpose for which
it was intended, lie bed no remedy. If, however, a war-
ranty or guarantee was given that a certain object would be
attained, and the invention failed in effecting that object,
the patentee could not recover in an action of this descrip-
tion, and the defendant would be entitled to a verdict.
The jury said they were of opinion that no warranty had
been given, and a verdict was therefore taken for the plain-
tiff for the amount sought to be recovered.

(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn and Common Juries.)

CRZIIBWZLL r. MOION.

Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Watkin Williams were for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Prentice for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action is a steam engine manufac-
turer, and he brought the action against Mr. Moxon, the
contractor for the new main sewer in the metropolis, for
returning a steam engine which had been lent to him; in •
damaged state, contrary to the terms of tLe agreement en-
tered into between them. The engine, it appeared, had
been let for 2(W. • month, and was worked for eight months,
and when returned it was found that the plates ou the
upper part of the fire-fine had collapsed, and tte rivets at
the joints wrenched. Several boiler-makers were milled,
who attributed this result to letting the water too low, by
which the plates became red hot, and the sudden genentioh
of steam caused when fresh water came in contact with the
red hot plates bent and depressed them. There was a good
deal of conflicting evidence as to the condition of the en.
gine, and it appeared that new plates bad been substituted
for the injured ones.
. . _