The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-18 00:00:00

CLARK V. CLARK.

This was an application by Mr. HEALD, on the part of the
plaintiff, Mr. James Clark, to have a receiver appointed with
the usual directions for management of an estate. The facts,
as stated by the Learned Counsel, were shortly these :—James
Clark, the present plaintiff, had a brother, George Clark, a
man of considerable fortune. George Clark had an only na-
tural daughter, Mary Clark Turner; and he executed a will,
leaving the whole of his property to this child. After the
execution of this will, and before his death; George Clark pur-
chased an estate worth upwards of 5,0001. but died without
altering his will with respect to this estate. George Clark died
on the 3d Oct. 1820, and the plaintiff; by law, of course became
the heir to the estate. About ten days after the death of his
brother, the plaintiff., who is a labourer, was working in some
fields, when a Mr. Bitton, the uncle of the illegitimate child,
came to him, and desired him to go to his brother's house, to
have some property settled upon him. The plaintiff according-
ly went with Mr. Bitton, and found there Mr. Margison and
Mr. Burton, two executors of his brother's will. The plaintiff
(as he now swore in his affidavit) was there asked whether he
was willing to give up this estate upon a consideration of 501.
a-year for life ? The plaintiff answered that he knew nothing
about the matter ; but imagin,ing that he should get nothing
if he did not accept the offer, agreed to the bargain. The con-
sequence was, an agreement was signed, transferring the estate
to the plaintiff's brother's daughter, Mary Clark Turner.--
Subsequently, he executed a more formal instrument to the
same effect, and in the January following executed further
deeds, giving up all his interest in the estate. The plaintiff
had since filed a bill to be released from the effect of these
deeds; and the foundation of the bill was, he was wholly igno-
rant that he had a right to the estate in question. The two
executors had filed affidavits, swearing that it was distinctly
explained to the plaintiff at the time he executed these deeds,

This was an action for infringing a Patent granted on the
3d of November, 1817, to the plaintiff, Samuel Hall, for im-
proving lace and every description of net-work. The plain-
tiff's case was conducted by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr.
SCARLETT, Mr. C631310N SERGEANT, and Mr. READER :
and the defendants by Mr. GURNEY, Mr. GASELEE, and
Mr. F. POLLOCK.

It appeared from"the specification, that the object of the in-
vention was to remove superfluous threads .which give a woolly
appearance to lace. This is effected by exposing it to the heat
of inflammable gas, and passing it by means of rollers with
such velocity as to destroy the woolly excrescences, while the
intense heat iq forced upwards by a current of air, so as to
pass through the meshes of the lace without injuring its tex-
ture. The novelty of the invention consisted in cleansing the
interstices from the woolly fibres, whereas before, by the
process of singeing, the edges only could be rendered free
from the particles.
Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Edinburgh, Mr. C. W. Nunn, and
Mr. John Johnston, gentlemen acquainted with the lace-trade,
proved that the invention, which they believed to be new,
added greatly to the clearnesS and transparency of the lace, and
that in consequence the home consumption of British lace had
increased, and that an increase had also taken place in the quan-
tity' of the article exported. There was a great demand for the
gassed lace in France; and scarcely any lace except that gassed
was purchased by foreigners.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked Mr. Johnston whether
this lace so exported to Prance did not very often come back as
French lace ?—(A laugh.)
The witness replied in the affirmative; and Mr. GURNEY
stated that a Norwich manufacturer had lately exclaimed
against the wickedness of importing French lace, when the
piece he was moralizing over, had been manufactured five
doors from his own.

Mr. Arthur Aileen,Secretary to the Society of Arts, said he
had devoted great part of his life to scientific investigations.
Before he saw Mr. Hall's invention he knew of nothing simi-
lar ; the only thing approaching to resemblance was singeing
muslin by passing it over a red hot cylinder, after which it was
passed between two others to prevent it from burning. Mr.
Hall's apparatus. appeared to be completely effectual. The
process applied to muslin, if adopted as to lace, would clear the
surfaces but not the interstices. The witness explained how
the application of the flame of coal or charcoal would fail of
clearing the fibres from the interior of the net, and how the
current of air produced by the machinery of • Mr. Hall was
essential to the purpose. He had no doubt either of the origi-
nality or the utility of the process. The specification coincided
with the process.
Professor Brande, Mr. Children, Mr. Donkin Mr. Fereday,
who assisted Sir H. Davy, in the perfecting of his safety lamp,
Mr. Phillips, Lecturer on Chymistry.at the blisidon Institu-
tion, agreed with Mr. Aikin in his opinion, and thought that
charcoal, which they had seen tried, could not answer the pur-
pose of the machine.
In order to prove the infrincrements of the patent by the de-
fendants, Charles Hart was first called, who stated that he en-
tered into an engagement with Mr. Jervis Boot for working a
machine on Mr. Hall's plan, which he had been enabled to
copy by being introduced into the rcom by one of Mr. Hall's
workmen. According to the testimony of this witness, the ma-
chine was worked within a partition in the warehouse of Jervis
Boot, in Mount-street, Nottingham, the windows of which
were barricadoed, and to which access was obtained by a secret
entrance from his bed-coons. The gas conveyed through a
bracket from the pipe which supplied the ordinary burners in
the outer room.

The testimony of this man was corroborated in several cir.
cumstances by other witnesses. •
Evidence was then given to shew that a machine was worked
at a house in high Pavement, Nottingham, which was shared
by both the defendants. It was shown that Francis Boot gave
orders for the supply of gas. It was further shown that 31r. •
Francis Boot offered a piece of gassed lace for sale, and that
he had taken the house on the High Pavement, and paid thew
rates and taxes.

Mr. GURNEY, for the defendants, stated that he should be
able to show that, long before the alleged invention of Mr.
Hall, lace had been cleared by flame, and that spirits of wine
and oil, or charcoal, would eally produce the effect with gas
He called two witnesses from Nottingham, who stated that they
had cleared stockings and lace by passing them through a flame ;
but it did not appear that they had ever used an apparatus re-
sembling that of the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel also con-
tended that there was no evidence to fix any share in the trans-
action upon Francis Boot.
The Jury intimated that there was no occasion for the So-
LICITOR-GENERAL to reply.
..

-The Lotto CHIEF JusTicE said there could be no doubt
that the verdict must pass against both the defendants; for
Francis Boot actually ordered the gas with which the machine
was put in action. As the plaintiff did not seek for damages,
they would find only nominal damages.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.'