The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-11-24 00:00:00

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, TUMMY, N0v.23.

WEBSTER R. MURDER.
This was an action brought fur the infringement e• patent for
percussion gun-lock. The Jury had found a verdict fur the plain-
tiff ; it the commencement of the Tern Mr. Brougham hail ob-
tsined a rule Nisi fur a new trial • and oo Friday last (see British
P;rss of Saturday). Mr. F. Pollock, Mr. Parke, and Mr. notch,
showed cause against the rule, and Mr. Brougham was heard in
vtippor• of it, but the Court rising, Naha argument was postponed
to this day.
Mr. litex now followed Mr. BRODGRAX. explaining to the
Court the manner in which the defendant's lock differed from that
specified in the plaintiff's patent; he contended that :he defendant's
was .. great an iniKovenient on the patent one, as the patent one
lite If was on the ~1,1 locks; ar.d therefore he trusted that the Court
would grant a new trial. Besides, it was very evident that the
Jury had been prejudiced against the defendant by reason of his
adeertisentents, which were read at the trial.
.The Lot:» Cu zEr JUSTICE—If tradesmen will puff their 'r-
acks, and there happen so be falsehoods in their puffs, they have
no right to complain of others taking advantage of them, and turn-
ing them against themselves.
Mr. 1111.x.—Such pufht mean no more than the words at the
conclusion of a letter—" I ant your obetliznt humble servant."
The Loan Clime Jur'. tcx—No, no, they are very different;
you do not mean really to defend the practice, therefore don't at-
tempt it.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—The defendant surely dew not intend to
come here and say that be has been irjured by his own misrepre-
sentations. _ .

➢lr. Hite. continued his argument, observing, that the invention
of the defendant was one of great inger.uity, and such as was un-
known to the world before; besides waich, he contended that the
plaintitra patent was void, as it claimed modes which it did not
describe, and consequently the specification was bad.
Chief Jestice !MOTT—The C.nirt is at present disposed to
think that there ought to be a new the! on the point whether it was
a new invention, that a bolt fur the purpose of keeping a revolving
body on its axis, was not so generally known before, that the appli.
cation of it to the machine then under consideration could be consi-
dered a novelty. At the trial perhaps the defendant might be pen.
vidcd with further evidence, but for the benefit of that he must pay
the costs of the last action. lie believed that the former Jury had
been determined by the defendant's misrepresentation, which, at
the trial, had been determined against himself. It' tradesmen
would descend to such artifices, whatever might be said of them
in other places, yet among grave men they could only be charac-
terised as contemptible for their meanness, and odious for their
falsehood.
Rule tie new trial niade absolute.
THI: KING V. TUC VitOPRIZTORI OF TIM MOINIXO

CHRONICLE.

The AxxoawXY-Gxxiii•x---a,,iied to the Court for an en.
largement of the rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be tiled against the proprietor of the Miming Chronicle,
fora libel on Mr. Kenrick, which appeared in that paper on the
7th of Augu.t. The grounds on which he made this application
were, that the defendant had papers in the country which would
enable him to show ramie on the merits, if he were allowed time
to procure them. lie therefore requested that the rule might be
enlarged till next term..
. .

31;.. Lis INEY assured the Court that there were rot the small-
est grounds for the application. The libels had appeared in the
paper of the 7th of August. On the 9th the editor was applied to
to give up the author, and he then said that he would not state
who wrote the letter, but that the observations upon them were
his own. Notice was then given that the proprietor would be pro-
ceeded against if he refused to declare who the author was. Under
these circumstances, the defendant had full time to possess him-
self of any documents that he might consider necessary to his
defence. Besides, he had often heard it Lid down in that Court
by their Lordships, that where the editors of newspapers took upon
themselves to insert libels, they should always have their justifica-
tion at hand.

TIV2 LORD CHIEF JVIITICE—The Court certainly has often
expressed that opinion. But how will Mr. Kenrick be injured by
the enlargement of the rule
Mr. tatx ET said that they would certainly be in a worse con-
dition, as the rule would then stand ia the peremptory paper.
The Lour) Cm El JUSTICE—Then we will grant the rule on
the understanding that it dues not go into the peremptory paper.
Rule enlarged.
The Court broke up at twelve o'clock, adjourning to the private
chamber, to bear the arguments en'mlr. Fautitleroy's case.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, Nov. 23.

Vltava in Banco.)

ILLC66 r. vrionic.

This was an action brought to recover the amount of fifteen fat
turkies sent by the plaintiff, • farmer, to the defendant, a poulterer
at Leadenhall-market, on the 24th Iteannher 18'22. It was tried
before the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, at Guild-
hall, on Thursday last, and a nonsuit was entered. The declara-
tion contaiced a count for " goods sold and delivered," whereas
the proof offered was, that the turkeys were sent fur sale on corn.
mission. There was also a special count, but the plaintiflat the
time did not open it.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—Sow moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not be had upon the payment of costs.
The Cum, J car is E.—Thisca,e was before me previous to the
trial, and I gave permission that the declaration might be amended,
upon the condition that die defendant should demur. A consulta-
tion subsequently took place, and you proceeded to trial without
amending your declaration, and had a nonsuit entered against you.
I Under such circumstances, Ido not see how I can assist you. If
I your client has any appetite to go on with the matter, lie must
begin de novo.
blr. Sergeant Vauc HAY—My Lord. I have no appetite but fur
the fat turkies.—Rule refused.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, No►. 23.

THE SAN FERNANDA, ♦LIAS 11. VENTOROSO.

............
Sir C. Ituntssos moved for head-money to be granted for
fifty-four men captured on board this ship u long back as De.
comber, 1800. She had been eensidered a private ship of war,
having a cargo of goods cn board ; and the question had been re-
served, on her condemnation, whether she was entitled to head-
money? Sir C. R. stated that the case had, through inadvertence,
been omitted to be stated to the Court, aced cited several cases in
support of his motion.—Motion granted.
TII b APOLLO,

Lord STOWELL said this was a case instituted by Mr. Daniel
Tar Out againstlkilliam 'Ferment, of Belfast, and John Nesbitt, of
Tokenhouse-yard, London. two co-partners in the vessel, Mr.
Tarbut stating himself to be owner of three-eighths, the other
I parties proprietors of five-eighths, and in which Mr. T. had prayed
the ship to be distrained from going to sea, unless a sufficient in.
was given to him that she would safely return
dfreoi:niniaty
To:yr:tie
right); was then about to make to India. The Court
granted his prayer, and the security was entered into to that extent,
and to that extent only, the citimated value of his shares being
:WOOL. on the other side various proceedings have been taken,
and a long account delivered, and various reasons assigned why
payment should not be made on the bond, though the actual loss
of the ship has taken place for which the bond had been granted ;
his Lordship could not enter into the various proceedings in this
ease: there has ucen too much redundant matter introduced into
it ; but lie would refer at once to the question raised, whether the
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion made in this Cafe,
as upon the opinion the Court should form upon that question,
the whole case must stand or fall. The practice of taking these
steps for security, where one party dissented from the acts of another,
were of considerable antiquity, and has been generally esteemed
of thegreatest benefit to commere, and for that benefit, recognized
by the general practice of law, and in the emphatic language
used on a memorable occasion, was meant to provide, "that ships
were made to plough the ocean, and not to rot in wharfs." The
Court had the power to take the security for the safe return of
the ship, on the prayer of Mr. Tarbat's petition. The bond
was given for that purpose, and for that only; and this is the
gist of the action. The hond is given for that purpose, and pro.
vides no remedy for any Oilier mailer, save for the loss of the ship.
In the course of the proceedings an attempt was made to induce
the Court to extend its inquiries further. Allegations were made,
supported by affidavits, and these were met spin by counter allega.
Lions and counter-statements, which have enlarged the matter to a
frightful extent. It has been said that the Commission of the
Court gives foil authoir:y to investigate every matter consequent
upon the granting of this bond. The Commission of the Court,
however large its powers, is known to be limited in its operation
by actual practice, and it nine; use re caution, lest it should
step beyond the rounds prescriiml by it. Tile present enterprise
is entirely of a novel nature, and no case adduced as prece.
dent.. Connsel have only said, as a reason fur making their
application, that there never was an instance in which an &milieu.
tion was made to Courts of Law, and in which they have in-
terfeml with the Court of .kelionalty Why is it so ? but
because this Court has kept within its ancient limits, and
prevented the necessity of such an interference. The argument
!night be tinkled to considerable weight if it could be shewn
the Court had ever gone to the extent that they now wish it.
Alice Roue further remarks, his Lordship, upon the whole, was
of opiaion that the Court hail no jurisdiction left them, but to the
extent granted by the bond. if the parties were aggrieved
they must resort to another Cfnen. His Lordship then went into
the circumstances of rile. Turbot's application to the Court of
Chancery, and lie was of opinion that in doing so he had used no
more than necessary caution. The suppression of some facts
alluded to in former reports was not of a material consequence to
the cause, as that Court had then stated when giving its final judg-
ment, and they did not reniatk upon their suppression. The
question of coats was to be decided, which he should order to be
paid to Mr. l'arbut, subject to tins reservation, that as Mr. Turbot
had introduced various acts and matters not necessary, the Re-
gistrar should not include any of them; and his liuedalsip ob.
served he would, in all future cases, take this mode of correcting
the too general practice of introducing irrelevant matter into the
proceedings of this Court.

A beautiful brig, mounting fourteen guns, was but
week launched into Loch Tay, at Milli'. She is the
largest vessel that ever floated on the bosom of the lake,
and is the property of Lord W.:mu-city.