The Express.
London, England, 1857-06-13 00:00:00

Kato InteMama.

EQUITY COURTS.—JuNE 12.
(Before the Muter of the Rolls.)
ANDERSON V. ‘NDIERSON.

Judgment wee given to-day in this emus, which included
a suit and cram suit between a father and son, who had
practised as solicitors at York, in copartntrehip. since
The father askol fur an areount, and for an injunction to
restrain his eon from practising on his own account at York
r the vicinity. The son asked that the parthembip might
be de stared ni have ceased since the 16th at May 1856, on
which day he had nerved hie father with a 00t1.11 that he
thereby dissolved the partnership for broaches eV mem one
or more " of the (V Tenants in the copartnership deed. In paint
of feet there had bent no substantial broach et covenant, and
the nal ground fur the separation aria as his Honour inter-
im ...nal the evidence, that the father could not steaks off the
a..bit of authority over hie son, while the latter was anions
to stand upon a more even footing eon portlier.
His Honour mid that under the eircumstainces there was
no doubt that a dimension was deeirable for both parties, but
there was no ground for say Mg that there but been any OWL
breach of covenant as to entitle the ..n to dissolve the partner-
chip by wane. The dimolution could, therefore, only date
from the decree. In conclusion his Honour remarked that
although there had been sufficient hostile feting to induce
the father and eon to the bill* against each other, yet mailer
of them had been able to It, the elighteot imputation on the
other. It would be out of the question to restrain the eon
from practising at York, but he new no reason aby the ae
'counts should not be taken amicably, nor was there anything
in their pest, notations which need prevent the former part-
ners from carrying on their businem separately in the same
city upon the moat friendly tem..
Mr. Anderson, appeared in person: and Mr. Selwyn
and Mr. Pearson represented the on.

(Before Vks-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood.)
DE LA RCM O. DICKINSON AND OTHERS.—MOTION TO
COMMIT VIE DEFENDANTs.
mi. we a motion to commit the defendant. for disobeying
th, order of the court by infringing the plaintiff's patent.
The plaintiff* are wholesale stationers and envelope mann-
lecturer*, in London ; end the defendsuite cony on • similar
Moines', &leo in London, and have a manufactory at King's
Langley, Herts. In 1845 Mr. Warren Do La Rue obtained •
• patent for "improve-nu-Ma in the made of manufacture of
envelopes" In December, 1649, Mr. Warren be lan Rue oh.
tained a emend patent fur an improvement in the machine, so
far as regarded the jinxed of gumming. In December,
1868, pleintiffe moved for an injunction to restrain the de•
feidanta from luting • machine which plaintiffs alleged u•S
eludes. to that fur which they had obtained a patent. This
machine wen called " Remond's Machine," a patent having
been obtained for it by the inventor in 1819. he motion won
ordered to stand over, with liberty to the plaintiffs to bring
an action to try their right. They accordingly brought en
action, which was tried before Lord Campbell in February
last, and the trial resulted in the following verdict for the
plaintiffs nlt is the opinion oftliejury that the fundamental
porta of Mr. Dickinson's machine are imitations of those
shown in the machine of Mr. De La Rue, and that the appli-
cation of the gumming operation, aa used in the machine
fWu dcfendants, in • colourable imitation of Yr. De La
ltue'a patent, and we find a verdict fur the plaintiffs." De-
fendants moved for a role for a new trial, and on the 20th
May the Court of Clue:lie Bench gave judgment, theiding
that the verdict ought nut to be disturbed, and refueing
• new trial. On the same day the defendants mote to
the plaintiffs, stating that, ninth the verdict, they
had so completely remodelled their nisehine as not to
interfere with the patent, and het diecontlaurd the gumming
preemie On the lot of June plaintiffs obtained an injunc-
tionrestraieing the defendants " from using, without the leave
and haze' of the plaintiffs, fur the tolling the hap. of
envelopes in ~recession one after the other, end from
nutnionag or ceentinting together the edgea of such delta, and
enticing them to adberetegether whilst folded, any machinery
similar to the machines of tin This
however, suepeoling that the defendantestill continued to in-
frino our patent, procured an inspection, which took pleat
un thc Bth ink., and the persons employed to mote the in-
epection reported that the machinery need by the defendants
woo similar to that of the plaintiffs. Models of both the
plaintiff: and defendants machines were produced in wart,
and the nada* operandi pelted out. It was contended on
the part of the plaintiffs that the defendants machine,
thentgli differing in ante mechanical details, was really a mere
colorable imitation of that of the plaintiff., while it was
tusintaiaed on the eintrary fur the defendants that the eisai-
lardy between the two !machine. wu in points which were not
ore, and were not claimed as new in the patent, and, more-
over, that it lied not been Amain In what respect defendants
had disobeyed the injunction.
Mr. Ruh, Mr. Grove., Mr. Hindmarth, and Mr. Fouts,
appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Cairns and Mr. Webster for
the defendant.,
The Viee-CtsanivUor said, priml facie it appeared that
defendant* ware infringing the patent. but there were mime
qucelono se to bow far the defendant. were disobeying the
injunction. He should, therefore, make no order on the
present motion, the coats to eland over till the bearing.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—.IvNE 12.
(Sittings is Baneo.—llefore Lord Culp&11 ea Justices
Coleridge, Erik end Crumples.)