The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-06 00:00:00

KO) itittlngeriv,"

COURT OF QUEEN, BENClL—BArsagto
Sirmiss wTT'S Gloms o. Tua Josucts or WoacarertByco.'
•
The moan bad is ti is ease 'natal a rule Mil. calling Isi
the adobe& to show Sim vsky avemademas shout aft
&we. rammaisdiag Wm eat if the army teM ea pry to ow
at do mat, sown. Mr. lirgliam Sim sus of bal. a yew.
lir ream* by dr look at Om Is be phi so btu, as
Iso by k onactseaue Si
=sdiaerromosemsata sob br ludic Ote
7& 8 Via. 94 la regard to is at semen onage-
moos manly He araelmossis d chat Olio IMO pool,
IllietatVard lb. Whitmore sheared ante,
Ibat the relied upon as promulgated by tho Lade
of CM Treasury was &tredve, ilassisai as it omitted to
slate tho different put:lonian requited by the act L each
ewe to be set forth.
This Attoraiy-(isneral appeared to support the rule, but
was stepped by
Lard Campbell, who was of opinion that the rule should
be made absolute.
Rule absolute.

BAIL COURT•BATURDAL
SWAM Yr kerma Cotaamon
Gaetano V. CONDOI6.-Taa COOVIT Vaults
Mr. Lash showed came against a rah which had been
obtained in this nee for • seggentim to be 'steed oa the roll
to thrive the pilsiatiff of meta m the ground that the Stabil
Amid hew hoes Wash* la the Deasy Coast. The adios
was hreaght emdest the adtailleX, M oXiesfOr, to recover
ei. 121. eitiesdis7he multi se legatee. After the case
wee at ythe ',Wife.* rat a sametens to bays it tried
halm the This woe opposed by the defendant on
W greand that csamdemilefg wag were coanected with
the eases and that gmaima d law would arise which
would raider itra mai awe ea he tried before the Under
ilberiff, but meats* Me krt. at timmben wide an order
to the sleet "that tho sanameas le try before the sheriff be
dismiesed, the theibmileM OaaNfal•lf tlua Wtaxation of costs
be taken es the Were male if a verdict wee found for the
ffllfria" The ere went down to the swims, and of coarse
nindi imigmeents were insured than if it had been tried
heiline the *sea It wee contended theft the defendant was
alltindided to enter this suggestion on the roll, became he
fiest emmeed the trial or the same' in a coon where
Me =pease would have been small, and then
modertuok, if it wee tried elsewhere, that he would
My the plalatiff fall costs. The present application
was in direst violation of the undertaking entered into by
the ddsedsar, and on which alone the ease went down to
the 111111491. At Mist, he should pay the extra costs incurred
=cause peg down to the assess before the suggestion
he 'atm&
Mr. O'Malley, in support of the rule,. said the action
ought closely to have been brought in the County
Court. The question was not whether the cease was
tried is me hawed instead of mother • bat whether W
adios was brought in a wrong mart. There being questing
of law might be a very good memo why a came should not
be tried boom the naderaberiff; bat not in the County
Court. The defendant only objected to the cause being tried
before the ender-sherit, sad it was Mated that it ought to
have been brought is the County Court. The defendant'
was within the provisions of the sat et primmest, and
chimed to be allowed to enter the suggestion as a matter of
right.
Yr. Janke Coleridge said that perhaps he might have
had a doubt whether he bad any discretion and whether
ibesegieetlea should not issue ot right, bat in • prelimi-
MN past width made it impossible that the tile mold be
min elestea. The conduct of the defendant atesluded
bh mans to the mart now and asking to be allowed to
ate a after what Ind occurred at chambers.'
The NOW at chambers to be allowed to try the
mom hshre the under-sheriff, and difficulties were started
by the defendant to that mans. The Judge melted whe-
ther, U he refused to order the ow to be tried by the
naderoheriff, and there wee a verdict for the plaiatiff,_ the
defend's% would consent that the costs should be taxed on
the higher scale, which he did. The meaning of that could
only be, that if the plaintiff incurred greater expense than
he need he should be allowed higher costs. This under-
taking was so inconsistent with the present application that
the role meet be diseharred.
Tax COV.PoaATION OF MANClizaTai V. BYDII.—AWAXD.
The Attorney-Oenenl moved to make a eubmission to an
sward under the Lauds Classes Consolidation Act a rule of
mart. By the 25th section of that act it was provided that
wiser, the parties do not agree to choose a single arbitrator
each party should appoint one, sad that such appoiatment
should be deemed to be a submission; and by the 36th
section, such submission may be made a rule of court. The
defendant had got his appointment regularly drawn, but he
had net got, and was not likely to get the other appointment.
He had, however, got a copy of the submiesion ea a notice
given by the corporation, and it was now silted to make this
copy and the other submission a rule of cow., so as to enable
the defendant to move to set aside the award.—Rule
mak&

COURT OF EXCHEQUER—SATURDAY.
flumes is BANCO.
BMW 0. Dtcnainsosi.—lggalanakaire or • PAwrT.
This wee an action for the infengement of a patent tried
before Mr. Justice Wighemen at the last assizes for Linea-
shire. In 1843 the plaintiff, who is an evenly' cotton-
spinner at Burnley, obtained • patent for an improvement in
Use mechanism of power looms used in weaving cotton fabrics.
The epeeitication describes it se a novel ansegemi at by
which the action of power looms might be instantly stopped
without concussion in cease precedent when the shuttle was
arrested in its passage from one shuttle-box to another.
From the explanation of the models exhibited in court it
appeared that in the operation of weaving the shuttle was
liable " to stick " while passing between the warp threads,
and when thus stopped the beam or stay that shifted to and
fro and pressed the weft threads upon the warp was likely to
strike against the shuttle and injure the threads or the loom
itself. The watchfulness of the weaver obviated this sod-
dent in hand-loom weaving, for whet the 'battle was ob-
served to " stick " he had power to stop the bunt or stay. In
power-boon weaving it was different, ani the same object
wee effected by mechanical means. The invention patented
by the plaintiff wee to secure this object effectually. It
wee effected by a combiaation of a elutes sad a break,
with the application of the power of the machise
itself to stop it by beagles it to bear upon the
break. The alleged isfringensent war is 1847 and 1848, when
the defendant, who is a machine maker in extensive business,
manufactured two machines for Messrs. Hibbert and Rad-
cliff, cotton spinners in Lancashire, and that they were
constructed with the same arrangement, substantially, as the
machines manufactured under the plaintiff's Wait. In
some respects it was admitted they differed. The machines
manufactured by the defendants had no clutch box, and
there wee an elastic lever connected with the break instead
of a rigid lever as wee used by the plaintiff. It appeared
that masher the clutch or break were novelties, bat their
combinatim as employed by the plaintiff was claimed as
novel and useful. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
and the learned judge reserved leave for the defendant to
move to eater the verdict for him if the court should be of
opinion that it ought, upon evidence, to have been entered
fur his. A rale having been accordingly obtained last
Michaelmas term,
Mr. Martin, QC., Mr. Atherton, and Mr. Webster, now
appeared to show canes against the rule. Mr. Watson, Q.C.,
Mr. Crompton and Mr. Cowling supported it.
The court, after a lengthened discussion, were of opinion
that there were no grounds for disturbiag the verdict, and
the rule should therefore be discharged.
Judgment fee the plaintiff accordingly.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—SATuRDAT.
111 12 Jou:, BLILTHOLOMEW HUDeOII.—ACCOMMODATIOII

BILL).
This insolvent, a coach-builder, applied to be discharged.
He had some accommodation bills in his schedule which had
been accepted for him.
Mr,Coramissionet Phillips declared that it wu the deter-
--• • • -

mistake of lehmeoll sod thieriese 1110•8111M101111116 i• de all is
their reveres sheik the akmelaahle eystemat aeremmedition
bills. It leash& is forth to the public that @ask wee their
united iateedise. sod La future relief would ask be affaded
to such persona
Os the part ed the beolvent it wee Odd that the prin-
ciple to refuse relief to persons who bed issepted accommo.
dation bill had been adopted La probed= CAM and in
prisoners' cues when the parties NM use apposed. Besides
the insolvent did not accept secenumedatiew bills, but they
bed bees aropted for him, end were NA onterally considered
" woommodetien bide."