The Sun.
London, England, 1852-01-14 00:00:00

CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chanedloi. did no it today. It was un-
derstood that his Lordship had to attend a Cabinet Coun-
cil, fixed for an early hour this morning.
(Before th,” LORDS JUSTICES

LUNATIC PETITIONS.—IN RE LOVEDAY.
This was a petitien presented by Mr, Loveday, against
whom a cotrann;slon of lunecy had formerly been issued,
to compel the surrender of certgin deeds now in the pos-
session of the trustees in whom the management of his
estates had been placed under the commission. It ap-
peared that immediately after the order of the Lord
Chancellor had been issued, directing the issue of a com-
mission, the trustees appointed under it having begun to
act, Mr. Loveday traverced the commission, and on an
action at law following obtained a verdict by which the
commission was set aside. The committees having, how-
ever, incurred considerable expense in the management
of the estates, refused to deliver up possession of the
deeds until they had been reimbursed, whereupon Mr.
Loveday presented the present petition.
The COURT, in giving judgment, said that the answer
which the defendants had attempted to set up, that they
had acted under an order of the Lord Chancellor, and
were, therefore, entitled to compensation, could not be
maintained in opposition to the verdict of a court of law.
The Court had no more power now to deal with the
estate of the alleged lunatic, after the verdict which had
been given, than it had to deal with his person. The
opinion of the Court, therefore, was that a decree should
be made, granting the prayer of the petition, and order-
ing tho immediate surrender of the deeds now in the pos-
session of the defendants.—Decree accordingly.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAN.)
His Honour the Master was engaged the whole of the
morning in hearing petitions, the chief of which was in
the cause

IN RE WRIGHT,
in which Mr. Busk and Mr. Cooper appeared for the
petitioner, and Mr. Humphries for the trustees.
It appeared that the petitioner, Samuel Wright, had
been entitled to a legacy of 1,0001. under the will of a
testator, who died in the year 1820. Three portions of
this legacy had been paid, but a balance still remained
of 2461. is. 61, which had been increased to the sum of
2621. 103. by interest, less the legacy duty. The legatee
inherited under an appointment of the widow of the tes-
tator, who died in 1849. Previous, however, to his in-
terest in the testator's property accruing the legatee bad
made an assignment, and the question, therefore, arose
as to whom should the balance in the hands of tho trus-
tees be paid; whether to the assignees of the legatee or
to the legatee himself; the point of law turning on the
introduction of the word " other" in speaking of the
personal property devised by the testator, including as
it must either one particular property or the whole of
the effects of the devisor.

His HONOUR suggested that a supplemental order
might he given; but it was ultimately decided that the
right of the legatee had not been invalidated, and that
the costs should be paid out of the general fund.

VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Sir G. TURNER.)
lIIILNEP. V. HARRISON.

His HONOUR gave judgment in this case, which came
before the Court on a motion to commit the defendants,
Messrs. Harrison, of Liverpool, for breach cf an injunc-
tion restraining them from the infringement of the pa-
tent of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Milner, of the same bo-
rough, for improvements in boxes, safes, or other depo-
sitaries for the protection of papers or other materials
from fire. His Honour observed that in June last, the
plaintiffs having brought an action against the defen-
dants recovered a verdict, and subsequently obtained an
injunction, the breach of which was now complained of.
The grounds on which the commitment was moved for
were, first, the sale ofla safo to a Mr.
,Thoma-
son, and, secondly, the sale of a safe to a Mr.
Cafferate. The delendant by his affidavit stated that the
first safe was only lent, and not sold, but the plaintiff
contended that if only a loan that loan was a breach of
the injunction. His Honour here perused the affidavits,
and was satisfied no order for committment could be
made on that case. He abstained from making com-
ments on the affidavits, for such comments would only
affect the character of the parties. Competition in
trade and heat of litigation had led both parties into
conduct of which ho could not approve. As to the
second case of cage to Cuff:Jrata, the question arising
upon it was wholly different. That safe was proved to
have been manufactured according to Taun's patent, and
the question was whether the manufacture under Tann's
patent was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. That
question had not been tried at law. If the Court were to
make an order for committing this defendant, it would
opinion, without the aid of a court of
law, and
nn
d itsto own
affirm that ?,11Iner's patent applied to all
cases where the material interposed in the box evolved
steam when affected by heat, which was not the con-
struction of Milner's patent, or the necessary corollary
from what had passed at law. Nothing that had fallen
from him must be understood as intimating the least
doubt that when the Court was satisfied there had been
a wilful breach of an injunction it would exercise its
power of commitment, and he would not permit any de-
fendant to protect himself from commitment by saying
he was manufacturing under another patent. The
question that pressed on his Honour's mind was,
whether there was or was not any question
to be tried as to the validity or invalidity of
Tann's patent, or as to the extent to which
the first patent reached it. If any case came be-
fore him in which ho found a defendant manufacturing
under a second patent, which was merely colourable,
and as to which there was no bona fide question that it
was an infringement, he should exercise without hesita-
tion the Power of commitment. He should, therefore,
order the motion to stand over, with liberty to the plain-
tiff to bring such action as he might be advised. If the
plaintiff proceeded at law on CaUrata's case and suc-
ceeded, he could renew the motion.
GRAND TRUNK OR STAFFORD AND pETERBORoGiI

RAILWAY V. BRODIE.
The arguments of counsel were then resumed in this
case, which was opened yesterday, and which there Is
every prospect of lasting a couple of days.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY•)

'WALTON V. FREES.
Mr. O'MALLEY moved for a rule to show cause why
the nonsuit in this case should not be set aside, and
new trial had. The action was brought to recover cora-
pensation in damages for a false imprisonment commit-
ted under the following circumstances. The plaintiff
was a yeoman, and the defendant is a Colonel in ono of
our cavalry regiments. A few months ago, while in a
state of intoxication, the plaintiff was enlisted in the
Colonel's regiment, but as the enlistment took place on
a Sunday it was illegal, and the plaintiff neglected to
attend to it. The consequence was he was put under
arrest and carried before the magistrate, but the magi!'"
trate refused to sanction the arrest, and thereupon the
Colonel took upon himself the responsibility of imprison.
ing the plaintiff. His friends, however, interfered in his be'
half, and he was, after some weeks' incarceration, liberated
upon a writ of habeas corpus, and this action was then
commenced. At the trial, however, before Lord Camp'
bell, it was objected that the action was too late, inns'
much as the Mutiny Act, under which the Colonel was
supposed to have acted, required that such actions es
this should be brought within six months after the cause
of action had occurred, which appeared was not the case
here, and the Learned Judge ordered a new writ to be
entered. It was now contended, however, that the ques-
tion as to whether the Colonel did really proceed in
what he had done ander the Mutiny Act, should have
been submitted to the jury, because if it should turn out
that his conduct was so unjustifiable that ho could not
possibly have imagined that it was sanctioned in any way
at this demand ought to
haveoTnht hhe se
Ce wouldu
m
r fallwwere
rtt
bo
the
bt
fh e
trial,
opiniong ro u ndt
whichb was not done, and
.
therefore they refused to grant this rule.
Rule refused accordingly.
QUEEN V. PARISH OF Sr. JAMES'S, CLEREENWELL:
mR
ade
Mr. PASHLEY applied to the Court for a certiorari to
bring up an order of the Pootelaw Board, dated the 4th
of July lest, and directed to the guardians of the parish
of St. James's, Clerkenwell, with the view of having it
quashed. One clause of the order required the gnarl
diens to divide the parish into three districtslfor medics'
relief, and to appoint proper medical officers to each
district, a proceeding which the guardians had no power
to take, and which the Poor-law Amendment Act
sptciully provided should originate with the Poor-lavi
Board itself. Another clause is the order called upon
the guardians, to nominate and appoint a relieving
officer, hut this also the guardians had no power to do.
Application granted.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
LOCKWOOD AND ANOTRBR V. YEARSLEY AND ANOTREIT,
This action was tried at the last sittings atter term in
Middlesex before the Lord Chief Justice, when a verdict
was found for the plaintiff for 451.
Mr. Sergeant BILES now applied for a new trial, oflt
the ground that the verdict waa against the evidence,
and also on affidavits. It was an action for goods 011
and delivered, and work and labour done, and the plot
were never indebted, except as to 1171. 155., vvhic'
amount was paid into court. The plaintiffs Were
brokers and house-agents, in Baker-street, Fortran°,
square, and the defendants were wine and spirit Wer
chants, at Liverpool, and in Baker-street, Portman;
bquare. In October, 1850, the defendants took posses;
eion of a house in Baker-street, belonging to a perso"
of the name of Oliver, and paid 1001. premium to 038
plaintiffs, who acted as housteagents for the owner;
When the defendants entered the house it was undo!:
going repairs by the landlord, and they employed IP,"
plaintiffs to make some alterations on their own accouo;
and the present claim arose ont of the transaction. 01„r
defence was that the plaintiffs had attributed a ltirg"s
portion of the work to the defendants than they OK,
to have done, and that the overcharges amounted to 0;
sum sought to be recovered. At the trial two survertoo
who inspected the premises were called, but the estiar
of one was 5L or 101. less than what the plainttlo
claimed, and the other, in consequence of the darkneto
of the court and his being ueprovided with spectaelesos.
assist his vision, could not translate his 11°t1,0
This was the ground for alleging that 1",0
verdict was against the evidence. The dadaist
stated that Yearsley, the defendant, who was a mater ;',O
witness, was seized on his way to the court to We,
Cep,
compelled with a violent attack of lumbago, and
compelled to return home. Mr. Sergeant Byles COP 7.
tended that on these grounds he was entitled to a rue'ea
The COURT thought no sufficient reason had
ivey
shown for saying that the verdict was against the e
deuce. As to the application, the fact of Mr. Ye°Lte
being unable to appear as a witness was known be
_IV
the trial commenced, and if his evidence was necess•l4
for the defence an application to postpone the trial ovg
to have been inade 10 the Court,—ltitie refused.
s

" A MAK B• SHIFT EXlsTocn."—Pdgking shirt's
sixpence apiece !—Ppch,