The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-11 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

DOOTII AND WARD V. IeKENZIE.
In this case the plaintiffs are the proprietors of a patent for
an improved cabriolet ; and the, present action, which ban not
come to trial, is brought for an'alleged infringement of the
patent right.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK this day moved for a rule to shcw
cause why the order of- the Judge in Chambers, requiring the
defendant to add certain particulars in his objections against
the plaintiff's patent, should not be discharged. He stated
that previous to the passing of the new Act respecting patents,
—that is, the sth and 6th of William IV.—in all cases of ac-

tion, even respecting patents, the plaintiff and defendant both
came into Court without any knowledge of each others' case;
but now, in cases of patent, by the fifth section of the Act of
Parliament before-mentioned, the defendant is obliged to
state his objections to the plaintiff's patent in his
plea ; and, if he do not give notice of his objections,
tile Judge at Nisi Prius, will refuse to admit his evidence.
It must, therefore, be the business of the defendant himself to
see that his notice is good and perfect. A bad notice, or an
imperfect notice, would in effect be of no more avail than no
notice at all. The defendant might, if he thought proper,
give in a new notice, or supply the deficiency of his first no-
tice, to give himself the advantage of new or more complete
evidence at trial. But the plaintiff could not compel to give
notice, or to set forth such and such particulars in his objec-
tions.

The CHIEF JUSTICE —The defendant can apply to the Judge
in chambers to call on the plaintiff to give explanations as to
his patent. May not a case arise %%herein the plaintiff would
be entitled to require explanations of an objection which was
framed in an unintelligible manner, and for the purpose of
deceiving ? If a notice was calculated to throw dust in their
eyes, could not the Judge in chambers order it to be amend,d?
Mr. Justice COLTNIAN —Perhaps Sir Frederick Pollock
Dill state some of the facts of the present case, by way of
illustration,

Sir FREDERICK PoLLocK—This is a case of alleged infringe-
ment of the plaintiff's patent, for an improvement in cabriolets.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—That is, a case to throw dust in the
eyes....._( A laugh.)
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK—The order requires us to supply
certain particulars in our oljections, as the names of the streets
in which certain parties reside, and the numbers of their houses.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—You have only said that you have not

infringed the patent of the plaintiff, but that you are carrying
out the patent of another man ; but you give no name.
Sir FREDERICK PoLnocx—The Court can compel the plain-
tiff to give explanations. But the defendant does not come
here of his own accord ; he is brought here to defend himself,
and the plaintiff cannot force upon him a particular line of
defence. If his defence be a bad one, he must take the con-
sequence.
The COURT—Take a rule to show cause.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE came into Court at ten o'clock.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAGISTRATES OF RADNOR.

Mr. CURWOOD said he was instructed to move for a rule to
show cause why a writ certiorari should not issue, calling upon
the Justices of Radnorshire to remove into this Court a bill
of indictment for felony. The circumstances connected with
the case were as follow :—A man named Thompson, of re-
spectable connections, was indicted at the last Assizes of
Radnor, and convicted of stealing a number of plates, and as
the preamble of the indictment mentioned that it was " against
the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King," the prisoner's
attorney took several objections against the indictment so
framed. On calling upon the officer of the Court, he dis-
covered (although the prisoner had already been convicted)
that the indictment had been amended, and instead of the
foregoing words there had been substituted " against our
Sovereign Lady the Queen," but leaving " against the crown
and dignity of our Sovereign Lord the King" remaining.—
( Laughter.)
The COURT enquired what was the object of the motion ?
The Learned CouNsEl. replied that it was for the purpose
of showing that the alteration in question was not made by
the authority of the Court, but by the officer alone. Since
the passing of Peel's Bill no judgment could be arrested
under such eireumst.inces, although it might be done by de-
murrer; but he apprehended the present case would not be
a,:sisted by that Bill. He did not mean to cast any imputation
on the officer of the Court of any criminal intention, but it
was a question of vast importance to the country at large that
the public records should not be tampered with.
The CoUßT—\Vas judgment given?
Mr. Cuitwoon—Yes, my Lord ; the prisoner was sentenced
to three months' imprisonment.
The COURT-Then you had better move for a writ of error.
Mr. Cvnwonn—The Chairman's notes which were taken at

the time would explain the objection.
The ceußT_The Chairman's notes prove nothing ; for the
mistake must be corrected by affidavits. But suppose your
motion is granted, what then?
. . . _ _

Mr. Ceawoon—Then the indictment would be quashed, as
the alteration should have been made by the Grand Jury. If
the record was produced, then the Court would clearly see the
alteration.

The COURT—The Chairman's notes would be very different
from a copy of the depositions taken at the trial ; and, under
all the circumstances of the case, the better course to pursue
would be to refer you to a full Court.
Rule nisi granted. Cause to be shown in a full Court.
THE QUEEN V. THE MAGISTRATES OF POOLE.
Mr. BARSTOW moved for a rule to shlw cause why a man-
damus should not issue to compel the Magistrates of the
Borough of Poole to show cause why they refused to sign
warrants for the collection of a rate to defray the expenses of
lighting and watching that town. A rate had been made, and
although several attempts had been made to levy the same,
the inhabitants refusal to pay any money. Warrants were in
consequence applied for to enforce payment, and none of the
Magistrates would consent to give their signature except the
Mayor ; and the inhabitants, perceiving that no proceedings
could be instituted against them, refused to contribute, and
the town was therefore in total darkness.
The COURT—Marc the recusants been summoned before
the Magistrates ?

Mr. 'l3' Artsrow—The Act of Parliament does not require
such a proceedinrr.
The COURT--.l't is usual, on such occasion!, to summon
such persons as are defaulters to shots cause before the Ma-
gistrates why they refusNl to comp'y. However, take a rule
to show cause.--Rulo granted.

LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET, YESTERDAY.
—The sales since our last have day by day been consi
dcrably, chiefly to the trade, in the middling, and fair quali-
ties of American ; speculators have run upon the low high
coloured quality, and upon low Surat. The most active
buying Was yesterday, when the refused parcels of the
were eagerly bought up. Our importer's are all firm, and
free sellers, but our stock is now chiefly in speculators'
hands, some of whom. are now realiz'ng, and the future state
our Market seems to depend upon the immediate wants
of the trade and the delay of imports. The z..uctions
were ill attended, nNirly all withdrawn ; 5,800 A n,
1,400 Surat, 200 Egyptian, 150 Pernams, on speculaticn ;
and 350 American and 400 Surat exported.
`here
height of the thermometer in the open air, on Mon lay ai.el
Friday- mornings,
was a difference of full 20 degr( es in tl.e

" WE MUST CHEER THE DUKE."