The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-01 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-APRIL 30.

Bitthip in Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Juitioe, Kr.
Justice Crompton, and Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
POTTIM e. PARK.

This was an action for the infringement of two patents
taken out, the one in the year 1828, the other in 1842, for
improvements in the machinery used in spinning cotton
yarn. The case was tried before the Lord Chief Justice and
• special jury at the London Sittings after Michaelmas
Term, when, after • trial of three day • verdict
for the plaintiff subject to leave to enter it passed
o
the
defendant upon the plea of not guilty as regarded the sixth
count. Both patents had run out, so that the object of the
action was entirely for the purpose of obtaining compensa-
tion for past infringements, and had no reference whatever
to the future.

The arguments in the cue occupied nearly the whole of
Thursday, and this day (Monday), Mr. Mooch, Q.C., and
Mr. Hindmarsh, repreeenting the plaintiff ; the floheitor-
General, Mr. Webster and Mr. J. A. Russell, the defendant;
and the judgment of the court was that the verdict must be
entered for the defendant.
Sittings at Nisi Prins, GuildhalL—(Before Mr. Justice
Wightmaa and Common Juries.)

WYNN T. CARTIL-A ROMANTIC HIrITORT.

Th. was an action to recover MO/. for money-lent and
paid, work and labour and materials provided, with interest
at S per cent., and on an account stated. The defendant
pleaded non•debted and payment.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. Pearce were counsel for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Robinson represented the
defendant.
_ _

It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff, Mina
Wynn, of Surrey-cottages, Penton-Ore, Walworth, that
about 11 years ago she became acquainted with the defen-
dant, who then resided with hie uncle, a farmer, is the
King's County, Ireland, and where she was then a servant.
She accompanied him to Liverpool on the uwkwatanding
that as soon as he had the means he would marry her, and
there she remained with some friends, the defendant fre-
quently writing to her from London, but she had destroyed
his letters. At his request she went to London, and took
• situation at his sister's, in Duddington-grove. Being
ill she went to the workhouse, and then into lodginp, be
still promising her marriage. He then suggested they
should go to Australia, but something then prevented them,
and they returned toßelfest, where the defendant purchased
a btiainess for 801. or 701., which she managed for him.
The business was sold and they returned to Liverpool, it
being finally arranged that they should go to Australia,
which they did in 1852, the defendant paying the
money. During the voyage she made 21. per week
wash-
ing for the passengers, which. with money which she sub-
sequently earned, was appropriated by the defendant to
their joint use. On arriving at Melbourne the defendant
obtained &situation in the police at the gold diggings at 10..
per day, and she went out and took in washing, receiving
for the former 10a. a day and making by the latter et
weekly. That lasted for two years. The defendant
then removed to Richmond, 2i miles from Melbourne,
where he obtained the situation of lock-up nem
at the station, he being obliged to declare
he was married to the plaintiff, as only married men were
appointed. Them she kept a quantity of fowls and a goat,
selling the eggs of the former at Bd. per dozen, and the
milk of the latter at 2c per quart. The money thus jointly
made was accumulated, until at last she deposited 590/. in
the Melbourne Bank in the defendant's name. The de-
fendant then grew craw towards her, and she afterwards
deposited 1001 in her own name. In 1858 they returned
from Australia as Mr. and Mn Dewlay, when the defendant
said she had no claim on him, and that she was only his
servant. On their arrival in this country he drew the Mt
and she drew her 1001. out of the bank. She gave him 101.
to make up 600/., thinking he would marry her, and purchase
• little land in Ireland, where they might settle down. After
this, at his request, she went to Liverpool, and purchased
a small store previous to going to Ireland, but nut hearing
from the defendant, she sold it off at • sacrifice, and came
to London, where she discovered that he had invested his
money pa cab-proprietor. He had declined to do anything
more for her, or to provide for her, awl she had therefore
brought this action, which she had been offered 501. to
compromise.
In her cross-examination, she said she was now forty-six
years of age. An improper intimacy had taken place be- ,
tween her and the defendant, at his uncle's. She had never '
threatened to expose him if be did not live with her. She
had not been discharged from his sister's for misconduct.
He had given her 151. to pay her passage out, but she con• i
sidered it part of her own money. He wanted her to leave I
him before they went to Australia, and when there he
offered to pay her passage home, and to give her 100/., but
he .lid not give it to her or deposit it in the bank. She bad
not after their return found him out in London, and promised
011 receipt of 101. not to interfere with him further. She
had not said, " You must give me • hitter, which I will get
stamped, forfeiting 501. unions you take me to live with you,
and give me 51. in hand on signing the paper."
The defendant, on being called, deposed that he was 22
years of age when he Rret became acquainted with the
plaintiff. She bad followed him to Liverpool, when he was
about to go to Australis, and knowing his relations had
found him out and pressed him to pay her passage, which
he did. She had not washed on the voyage nut, she was
too delicate. They were at the diggings 12 months, he
being a policeman, and they lived together in one room
at Richmond, where he was lock-up keeper. He
had never received sixpence from her. He had
180/. when he arrived at Melbourne. He was first
paid 12s. 6d. a day, with perquisites and rooms
at Richmond, and afterwards 10a. 6d. He was in Australia
about five years. The plaintiff had never earned a farthing
except by her fowls. From the violence of her temper and
misconduct he whaled her to return home, and offered her
100/. and her passage to England. She agreed to his terms,
but when she gut the money she snapped her timers at him,
mid raid she was not such a fool. She deposited the money
in the name of Eliza Carter, and he had to resign on ac-
count of her misconduct and come home. Oo her last visit
to London she admitted she had no claim on him, and took
101. not to annoy him any more. She had subsequently
called et his stables and he threatened to send for • police-
man. She then took apartments opposite his stables, and
held imaginary conversations with him in • loud voice for
three months in reference to his conduct. He had never
offered her 501. to settle the scrims.
In his cross-examination the witness denied that he had
ever promised the plaintiff marriage.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury found a
verdict for the defendant.