The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-05-20 00:00:00

LAN' INTELLIGENCE,

COURT OF CHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, MAY 19.

IIIUNTOW v. ROBIN,

Riceartne prayed for an injunction on the following
&minas :—A Mr. Daniel Brunton invented a new mode of making
oak bonnets in the year 1817, and took out a patent to protect to him
the advantage' resulting from his ingenious invention. The sptvi.
holden of the invention was lodged in Court. The petitioner has
bens for seven yearn in exclusive possession of his invention, and of
the advantages accruing to him from it. The defendant, Anastane
Robin, of James-street, and his wife Margaet, acquired, by some
os a knowledge of the plaintiff's invention, and have manufac-
tured boned In the manner secured by the patent to the original
inventor and patentee. These allegations are supported by the af.
tidavits of the petitioner. Mr. Richards concluded by praying his
Lordship to grant an injunction to prohibit the defendants from
astnufneituing any more bonnets in the manlier he had mentioned.
The born CHANCELLOR said there were sufficient grounds for
In injunction t the Court had granted an injunction to prohibit the
tanking of blacking, which covered the feet, and why nut against
• bonnet*, which covered the head.
Petition granted.
COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE.
COKST V. HARRIS.

Mr. flt Art remindedlnVl;;d;hip,tiTat he said he would not
tier any motion in this ease until the receiver should be appointed
by. the Master. The receiver was now appointed. Mr. Heald,
therefore, hid a motion to make, that the receipts of the theatre
shouldbt +milled to the current ex of the establishment.
Me Loan CHANCELLOR that the expenditure of the
thane should be supplied.
The adverse Solicitor said that Counsel were instructed to oppose
Mr. Hvild's motion • they were not present just now, but were ex-
p4cted to come into eourt every moment.
Mr. HEALD did nonce for that; if his motion was not opposed,
he would take his Lordship's order for the application of the
receipts.
The Loin CHANCELLOR trusted the gentlemen would not
(towel about the receipts of this night ; all parties might argue the
mow to-morrow morning.
Mr. Swami having now come in, expressed his hope that his
Loidsbip would hear his motion relative to the application of the
receipts to-morrow, as well as Mr. Heald's motion.
.The Lotro CHAWCZILOII saki, that he understood the business
cease Theatre t 6 have been carried on up to last night, as usuaL
Ale. lirat.n assented to this.
The Loan CHANCELLOR—Then let matters go on to-night as
hisolohne, and let all the motions come on next Friday.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IVEDKEIDAY, MAY 19.

Sittings its Basco.
TM Court was occupied all day with the special paper. There
was no cape of any general interest.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WroxrsnAr, MAY IS.

EMERY V. snows.
Mr. Sergeant Pet]. moved foe a rule to show cause why the de.
fondant should sat be discharged out of atstody. The defendant,
Bosh Brown, it sips/ed was an old woman, upwards of 70 years
of age, and resided at Worcester. Her husband died about nine
yeas ago, leaving her a small estate, called the Rock. The yearly
rile,of this property was 2W., in which she had a life interest.
Haring sold a part of the produce of the ground to the amount of
18s. to a man of the name of Oliver, she received only U. of
that Wan, and not being able to obtain the balance, she was advised
by het friends to apply to an attorney. She went to Mr. Thomas
/may, the plaintiff, an attorney in Kidderminster, and requested
Sin to write a letter to Oliver, on the subject of her claim, but she
dui not wish him, it was stated, to do more than write a letter fur
We payment of the money. The attorney promised to write a let-
ter accordingly, and not to put the defendant to any further ex-
pense. Some time afterwards the plaintiff informed the defendant
that the Asian would take place in a few days, and he should re-
entre money to proceed to trial. The defendant said she had no
money, and that she did not expect to be called upon for any such
purpose, after his promise to put her to no further expose., beyond
that of the writing of the said letter. She did not with to have any
thing further to do with law matters. She was induced, however,
by the attorney, to borrow IW. by mortgaging her property for that
sum. The attorney being supplied with the necessary funds, the
action VII brought, and the defendant obtained a verdict against
Oliver. An execution was subsequently issued against Oliver,
floe* property was sold to defray the expenses. Bat in the event,
lahholl of paying the defendant her balance of 41. 18s., the attorney
leinglit in • bill of eats of 90/. ss. led. The defendant was un.
sass pay, and therefore refused, upon the plea of inabilit and
on that of the rlaintirs promise. The plaintiff then sent hr the
defendant and her son, and threatened to imprison her if the bill
we not paid.. He then produced a sheet of parchment, and de-
sired them to stgn it in acquittal of the costs; but the son refused
to ago it without knowing the contents, and the old woman could
not write. The attorney then told them it was a mortgage on the
Boa property. The son, on hearing this, said he would, before
hi *pad away his father's land, cut of his hands. The plaintiff,
bi consequence, lodged the tinfendant in Worcester gaol, and
bsirtilbt an action for his costs; but in the result he was non-suit.
ettlistring no witnesses to support his cause. The defendant, how-
erts did sot obtain her liberty, but was continued in prison on a
detains for ft!. for further costs.
The CIIIEF JUSTICE inquired whether she was not set at li-
berty after the nonsuit.
Mr. Sergeant PELL replied in the negative, as the attorney had
brought in a fresh bill for the expenses of the nonsuit.
Mr. Justice BUILIOUGIi asked whether the attorney was of this
Court. _ . .

—.—
Mr. &newt PELL thought he was, but he was not certain.
It was ascertained that he was an attorney of the Court by one of
ha Alters.
Afr Btriresat PELL was sure that if he belonged to the Court of
'Common Pleas, there was not a gentleman belonging to it who
rurroald not regard his cuoduet with abhorrence. To bring in a bill
of coats for upwards of 11111. for the recovery of 41. 18s. which she
•011iet received, was arliinstance, he observed, of unexampled cruelty
•a•stl oppression. Mr. Sergeant Pull concluded by moving for a
-rule to show tame why the defendant should not be discharged
trara prison, and why the plaintiff should not account for his coo_
door. roe that he be struck of the roll of the Court.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause why the defendant
rdiradd not be discharged out of custody, and directed that an aM.
davit should be made that the attorney belonged to this Court.
Mr. Sergeant PELL thanked the Court, adding, that it was truly
a Lard case.
Rule granted.

POLICE.