The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-08-05 00:00:00

CHESTER ASSIZES

CHESTER, MONDAY.
The summer assizes commenced this forenoon before Mr.
Justice Crompton and Mr. Justice Williams. There are
fifty-three prisoners for trial. The most important case in
the calendar being that of Mr. Benjamin Baylis, the city
surveyor of Chester, from 1846 until 1855, who stands
charged with having embezzled large sums of money, the
property of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Chester.
Mr. Justice Crompton presided in the Crown Court, and
charged the grand jury. There were no cases possessing
any public interest tried during the day.

NISI PRIUS COURT.
(BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS.)
GRAHAM V. RICARDO AND OTHERS.—In these case
which were of considerable interest, the Attorney-general,
Mr. Grove and Mr. Davidson had been retained on the part
of the plaintiff, and Mr. Welsby appearcd for the defendants.
The damages were laid at £2,000. Mr. Grove, Q,C, stated
the case. He said that the action was brought on two
patents, the first granted on the 27th of March, 1845, and
the second on the 4th of September, 1845. The plaintiff
was trustee for parties beneficially interested in the gnat(
percha patent, and he brought this action against the de-
fendants, viz, Mr. Ricardo, the member for Stoke-upon-,
Trent, Mr. Whitworth, an eminent enginser and contractor,
at Manchester, and others personally interested in the
E'ectric Telegraph Company, for an infringement of the
Gate Percha Company's patent. There were two invert-
Lions. in (Fustian. The first was a mode of manufacturing
gutta percha, by a very ingenious machine, which forced
it through warm dyes, and it was afterwards chilled in
watr for the purpose of forming plastic thread. The
second discovery was an improvement on that

invention, by the insertion of a maunstril or case
in the tube of the gutta percha, which was so forced
Thesethrough,
patents,as to
tmakehe plaintiffs
it be comceo
contended,
solidend edtube
th aot guttathe
percha.
defendant
had infringed by manufacturing the same. Until a few
days ago, it was expected that this case would have been an
important question for the jury and his lordship to con-
sider, but on the eve of the trial, after a consider*
able amount of investigation, the defendants had
admitted the plaintiffs title, and consented to a
verdict in the action. It would, therefore, be the duty
of the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs. Mr.
Welsby : On the part of the defendant, I have now to
confirm, in the fullest manner, all that my learned friend has
stated, and to express, on behalf of my clients, their willing-
ness to consent to the verdict being entered against them
The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiffs, by direc ion
of his lordship, Mr. Grove said he had now to apply to his
Lordship for a certificate of the validity of the patent,
under, the Patent Act. [A certificate of the validity of a
patent, carries treble costs in any subsequent action.) His
Lordship said he must pause before acceding to the applica-
tion, because he had some difficulty in concluding whether
the clause in theact was applicable in the present instance;
something must be shown which did not appear on the
record, in order to present a collusive action. Mr. Grove
said, it appeared to him that the object of the act
was to enable the judge to ascertain whether the plaintiff's
titles had been bona fide questioned, which certainly had
been the case in the present instance. The judge said,
that on Mr. Welsby's confirmation of that state-
ment, he, would grant a certificate, because then
he should have material to go upon, whereas,
at present there was only what was shown upon
the record. Mr. Welsby here observed .he could
assure his lordship that until a very recent period this
defence was not only a bona fide one, but was conducted
with the strongeEt hostility. The Judge then remarked
that on that confirmation he was justified, and would
grant the certificate.
HANCOCK V. RWARDO AND OTHERS.—This was another
action on the sac el grounds as the preceding one, but
lavought for the infringement of other of the Gutta 'Perch&
patents. A similar verdict was taken.
GRAHAM V. MOSELEY.—A similar action to the former.
The defendant. who resides in Manchester, is connected
with the Electric Telegraph Company, as contractor. A
like verdict was taken for the plaintiffs by consent.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY.-SATURDAY.

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. DR. LUSHINGTON.

THE CASE OP THE DESPATCH STEAMER.—In this case
there were cross actions. The schooner Glide, of the burden
of 142 tons, preceeding from Amlwoh, in ballast, to Liver-
pool, and the steamship Despatch, of the burden of 294 !oils,
with engines of 120-horse power, bound from Dub'in to
Liverpool, came into collision with each other at 12.26 a.m.
on the 14th of November last, about one mile from the
north-weet lightship, at the entrance to the river Mersey.
The direction of the wind was S.E., and the
weather, according to the schooner, was hazy, but
as represented by the steamer, dark and cloudy with-
out haze or mist. The course of the schooner wag
S.S.W.; of the steamer E.S.E. The schooner alleged that
she was close hauled on the port tack, and on descrying the
steamer on her starboard quarter, distant a mile, she imme-
diately exhibited a light, and kept steadily on her reach,
expecting that the steamer would pass under her stern,
which she might easily have done. The steamer, however,
which was proceeding at the rate of nine knots an hour,
approached the schooner without any alteration in her
course, until within the distance of about three times her
own length, and then, instead of going astern, attempted' to
pass ahead, and thereby rendered a collision inevitable-
The schooner put her helm hard-a-port, but the steamer ran athwart her hawse, and struck her such a violent blow that
she afterwards foundered. The steamer represented that
she saw the tchooner three points on her port bow, distant
from a quarter to half a mile. The schooner had no light
exhibited. The helm of the steamer was ported and then
put hard-to-port, and she paid off several points, but the
schooner ran stem on into her. She charged the schooner
with not kerpirg a proper lookout, not showing a lighte
and not porting her helm in sufficient time. Dr. Addamg
and Dr. Twiss were heard for the schooner ; Dr. Beyford-
and Dr. Spinks for the steamer. The learned judge hav-
ing called the attention
,of his assessors (two of the brethren of the Trinity House) to the facts of the case,.
The elder brethern said they were of opinion that
the blame rested entirely with the steamer ; that it
was her duty, on first observing the schooner, to ease and,
stop her engines, and not to go on in the reckless manner'
she did, especially in such a narrow channel. They were
further of opinion that there was a great want of humanity'
on the part of the master of the steamer in not having
stopped his engines immediately when he saw the accident
which had occurred. The learned Judge, having pro-
nounced against the steamer, added that
he concurred 10
all which the Trinity Master had said as to the want of
humanity in Hot going back to look after the crew of the
schooner. If the Trinity Masters had been of opinion
that the schooner was to blame he never would have
given the steamer her costs.