The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-05-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
- .
COURT OF CHANCERY, SATBUDAY, ISAR It
• . . FRANCIS V. HONNAR.
In -*frig case an injunction had formerly been
granted by his Honour the VICE-CHANVELLOR to
.restrain tare Defendant from infringing the patent
of the Plaintiff, by manufacturing and selling a
•sitecies of cement, called Hamelin 's Oil Cement.
The cement in question was alleged to have been
newly invented some time back by a person named
who obtained a patent for hiediscovery,
which he afterwards transferred to the Plaintiff.
Mr. Hoerr now moved that the injunction might
'be•dire,tilved. . lie contended that the cement which
the Plaintiff claimed as his invention had been tea
Alit for upwards of forty years. But, besides, the
Defendak denied that, in the manufacture of his
cement, he in any way adopted the method ens-
. " &eyed by the Plaintiff. Under these circuits-
. .atances he trusted the Court would dissolve the
.."Irnjunction.
Mr. Ilea fa) spoke at considerable length in sup-
•' !.port
.of the iijnitet . lie maintained that the
.. • Plaintitra method of making cement was different
• ',Gia any otlivr that had ever before been employed
10 the manufacture, anal that the Defendant's com-
• position was a direct infringement of the patent of
the Plaintiff.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, after reading over the
precut awl rpeeiticair (((( of the Plahr.itf, and taking
a review of all tire. Cwt. contained in the affidavits,.
rr;rectr-r1 that Ile ii inocrinn should be dissolved,
mitd th.st aim action nt low SI Id be instituted
v.it!artit delay to try the question. If the Plaintiff
s'.oald sneered its tire artisan, lie might apply for
a revival of the InjnaCti.M. and to haVe en account:
el the profits made by the Defendant from the ma-
nufacture; and in order that the profits might be
daly ascertained, if the Defendant did not in the
mean time keep the accounts as reqttirrd, the
• Cutr4 isouad, on the application of the Plaintiff;
TtorlP,lhe *mimic:Hon.
•
~ •
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Wet.
SATURDAY, APRIL 12.
ARCH V. WALKER.
• • This-wan an issue to try the validity of a commis-
missi tttt Of bankruptcy. The point to be deter-
mined arts, that tl a certificate granted to the bank-
rupt had liters falsely and illegally obtained by set-
ting up fictitinas debts. The Jury found a verdict
tor the Plaintiff, thereby oversetting the certificate.
The. ATTORNEY-GENERAL now applied for a
new trial, on the ground that several of the wit-
. verses formerly examined were creditors, arid In
• in overturning the certificate, as they, there-
by, became entitled to any property which the
bankrupt might have acquired subsequent to his
bankruptcy, and, therefure, that they were not
-competent witnesses.
The COURT, however, refused the rule. on the
'ground that it was trot a matter of necessity, that
upon the decision of the Jury the Chancellor
would recal the certificate.
DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF BARCLAY, D. BARCLAY.
This was an action of ejectment tried betbie Mr.
• Justice PARK, at Hertford. The question at issue
regarded the right of the lessor of the Plaintiff' to
a small cottage. The evidence at the trial was
almost exclusively confined to a woman named
Ann Davis, who stated limit she was 83 years old.
rind that she recollected the mother of the lessor of

she Plaititiff residing iu the cottage in question in
. .)740.
Upon 'llgs evidence the Jury found a verdict for
:Ilia Plaintiff:
Mr•. JERVi, now moved to set that verdict aside,
• .on the ground of want of probable evidence. The
Learned Counsel contended, lie dependance ought to
be placed on the testimony of Ann Davis; for even
allowing her to have been of the age stated st the
time of the trial, nawely, 83, she cold.) lint. in
1740, been more than three years old, and there-
fore could not, as she had stated, recollect who
lived in the cottage in question at that time.
Mr. Justice BEvr observed, that the circumstance
alluded to by the Learned Counsel would riot fur-
rilati grounds for setting aside the verdict ; lie could
himself recollect cisctunstunces which occurred
when lie was not more than four years old.
TheCttietr-Jusrict observed, it was astonishing
with what pertinacity the memory of persons
scaid-
log iu the country, who had but few changes in
their situations, retained recollectio►t of particular
circumstances. He thought it probable this old
woman might perfectly recollect the circumaancti
lit• which she had given evidence.
The Court refused the rule for a new trial.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, M IL

THE KING N. PARKINS.

The Defendant in this case, the late Sheriff of
'London, appeared in person to move the Barons to
art aside au 'street which had been issued against
.for mat appearing, under his recognizance of
got. to take his trial on an indictment pirferred
against him curl common assault, alleged to have
been comatitteow tile pirson of George Phillips.
The Defendant was proceeding to read his affidavit

vrott which hie application was founded. when it
• apm.artd that the only description which he had
given of himself was, as " late Sheriff of the
City of London."
Mr. Baron GARROW interposed at the com-
rneticement of the affidavit, and suggested that ;is
it was informal, Irmo thy• place of abode of the
Defendort bring omitted, it conk' not be rreeoied.
Mr, Parkin•, on this objection, withdrew his ap-
odiSatiou prO Import, and retired.

NAT lq.
As 1100 n as the LOUD CHIFIF BARON and the
saber Barons had taken their bests on the bevel),
the Ex•Slserift Parkins., who had taken hie seat
among the Counsel. rote and addressed the Court,
-saying., that he had to apply to their Lordships,
in consequence of s recognizance tan a hie:, he had
formerly entered, haaing been retreated into his
Majesty's Exchequer. Mr. Parkins then pro-
ceeded to reed the terms of the recognizance and
the entreat.

The LORD CHM BARON, after consulting
with the other Judger, said. that tins Court would
sit present respite the recognizance, not rescind it.
M►. Parkius thanked their. Lordships, and said
be desired no more.