The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-26 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(After Term Nisi Prius Sittings, at Westminster,
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special
Jury.)

PRICE V. CARVER.

The further hearing of this case was resumed
this morning. It was a patent case, for the in-
fringement of a patent for the manufacture of a
sewing-machine. The case presented no feature of
interest other than it was an illustration, according
to his lordship's remarks in summing up, of the
inexpediency and injustice. of
that branch of our
patent laws relative to foreign inventions. His
lordship also stated that he would not take another
patent cause at those sittings ; and that in future
patent causes from the manufacturing districts
should be sent back there for trial, or they should
stand at the bottom of the list. The time occupied
in trying patent causes was so great that it mate-
rially interfered
with the other business of the
i
Court, andinflicted in many cases much loss and
great hardship on all the other suitors.

BAIL COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice Mellor
and a Common Jury.)
MARSHALL V. GOLDBY.
This was an action ia trover and detenue to re-
cover three racehorses or their value, and also for
damages sustained by the loss of the sale of them,
and expenses for the recovery of their possession.
The defendant pleaded, first, that the horses were
not the plaintiff's property; secondly, that he had
a lien on them ; and as an equitable defence he
pleaded that the plaintiff's claim to the horses in
question was under a bill of sale from Charles
Arthur Ciietwynd Talbot to secure to the plaintiff
the repayment of a loan of £1,000; that the plain-
tiff was solicitor to Captain Talbot ; that he ap-
propriated the bill of sale, and that no sum of
money was paid to the plaintiff; that the bill of
sale was made with his cognisance and for the pur-
pose of protecting the horses from seizure by Cap-
tain Talbot's creditors ; and:that the plaintiff agreed
to leave the horses with the said Captain Talbot,
whose property they were, and that the deten-
tion of the horses by the defendant was with
the authority of Captain Talbot. The plaintiff, it
appeared, had demurred to these pleas, and under
a judge's order he had obtained particulars of the
def'endant's olaigt for training) &c., which gmotintod

to upwards of £l5O. The pleadings and facts
showed that the action was substantially defended
by Captain Talbot, who was a nephew of the Earl
of Shrewsbury. The plaintiff, who acted up to a
very recent period as Captain Talbot's solicitor
against the defendant, had been to his stables. The
plaintiff alleged that he had advanced £l,OOO to
Captain Talbot at £lO per cent, interest. The
money was to be paid on the Ist of June or on an
earlier day, and seven days' notice was to be given
for the day of payment. A notice had been left at
Captain Talbot's known place of business, 6, Lans-
down-lawn, Cheltenham, requiring it to be paid
within seven days, without appointing any specific
day, and in default the plaintiff was to proceed to
sell the horses or bring an action.
. _

For the defence it was contended that the notice
was defective, and as to the other points leave was
given to move the Court above; the jury, how-
ever, were to assess the damages in the event of the
Court above deciding in favour of the plaintiff.
The jury assessed the horses at £2,000, and £lO
damages on the count for expenses.