The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-05 00:00:00

11,11
tit, 0
314
it4l3
;. '3
-

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

TRAIL AND OTHERS V. GREY AND OTHERS.
This was an action for an infringement of a patent, I
possessed by the plaintiffs, for making sails. The inven-
tion consisted in strong bands being placed diagonally on
both sides of the sails, in order to render them more able
to resist the pressure of the wind, and to make them
more durable. Captain Wright, one of the de-
fea.ients, had, whilst the vessel " John Gray," of
which the defendants are the owners, was at sea,
placed diagonal bands on the sails in order to strengthen
them, which, it was held, was an infringement of the
invention of the plaintiffs.
A number of experienced navigators and sail makers
wore called in support of the case of the plaintiffs, whe
deposed that the invention was new and valuable, and
one stated that the sails on the vessel of the defendants
were strengthened according to the plan of the plaintiffs.
Mr. HILL, who appeared for the defendants, con-
tended that the invention was not a new one ; but bad
been long in use. The main invention contended for
was the running of a cord under or interwoven with the
bands, whereas Captain Wright had merely used dia-
gonal canvas bands to strengthen his sails whilst at sea.
Witnesses engaged in sail making, proved that they
had used diagonal canvas bands long before they saw the
invention of the plaintiffs. It was also proved that the
bands on the sails wero partly of old ,and partly of new
canvas, and apppeared to have been done by a sailor,
and not by au experienced sail-maker.
Mr. Laing, sail maker at Stockton, proved that the
sails for the vessel were not made in accordance with the
plaintiffs' invention, but simply banded to strengthen
them, dad the most simple and natural mode of doing so
was selected.
Mr. WHATELEY having replied on behalf of the
plaintiffs,
Mr. Justice WIGHT3IAN summed up, and the jury,
after some deliberation, found a verdict against Wright,
intimating that they considered the invention a new one.
THE QUEEN V. MAHON.
This was a prosecution at the instance of the Attor-
ney-General against William Gunn Mahon for bargaining
with a person named names Paxton, to procure a clerk-
ship in the Ordnance-office fora sum of money. Another
count charged him with having received 110/.
Mr. COcienunN (who appeared for the defendant) said
he was prepared on the part of his client to admit the
charge against him; and, therefore, he would consent to
a verdict of guilty bring entered against him.
The ATTORNEY• GENERAL having consented, a ver-
dict of guilty was recut ded against the defendant.
POLLET V. CHETERTON.
This was an action in forma pauperis brought by Mr.
Pollett against the Governor of Culdbath-fields Prison
for false imprisonment and trespass. The facts of the
case have beem much before the public, and excited
much sympathy.
Mr. JAMES stated the case. He said the person for
whom he applied had not a farthing in the world—he was
as poor as Lazarus—and he sought compensation
for one of the grossest injuries that could be inflicted on
a British subject—or, indeed, upon the liberty of the
subject. Indeed, a great constitutional question was
involved in the .case. The plaintiff had been sued
in the Whitechapel County Court, by a person named
Bidiegton, to recover a debt of 11. 19e. It appeared
that there was a dispute about a guinea which had been
paid to an attorney; and, indeed, the whole matter in-
volved itself into a mere cavil, instead of a criminal
matter. The case occupied but three minutes in the
hearing, and the plaintiff was adjudicated to pay 1/. on
the 14th of iFebruary, land :,he rest jin March, the
whole debt with costs, amounting to 11. 193. The instal
ments were not paid, and the defendant was committed
for contempt to Coldbath-fields Prison. The defendant
was never re-summoned as specified in the 98th section;
but was taken into cu,tody on the 6th of March, by
two of the eflicers of the County Court. He was placed
by the governor among the misdemeanants, had his hair
cropped, his whiskers shaved off; and put to hard labour
—having been compelled to change his clothes for those
of a convict with a number. He was in treated as
a felon, and was released on the recommendation of the
surgeon, after being suejected to this treatment for 5 days.
Ttie Governor, it appeared, asked the plaintiff what he
had been sent there for, and if it was not for contempt?
He replied that he was net there for contempt, but be-
cause he could not pay a debt. The governor said "he
was committed for contempt—for correction, and correc-
tion he should have." The plaintiff remonstrated; but
the governor told him to keep silence, as no speaking
was allowed there. Now, under these circumstances, he
considered that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial
damages at their hands, for an outrage more gross or
more opposed to the spirit of our law could not be con-
ceived.

Evidence was then adduced to bear out the statement
of the Learned Counsel. It appeared that Ridington
applied and paid for an execution against the plaintiff,
and that the plaintiff became so ill whilst in the prison,
that he was liberated at the end of five days. The de-
fendant, it appeared, had refused, under the sanction of
the Magistrate, to produce the warrant by which the
plaintiff was held in custody (which Mr. James said was
a gross violation of the liberty of the subject, to deny a
prisoner a copy of a warrant by which he was held cap-
tive). The plaintiff was employed, with about 700
others, in the workroom.
Mr. WATSON addressed the jury for the defendant,
end contended that the defendant had only, as was his
duty, followed out the instructions and behests of the
Act of Parliament under which the plaintiff was com-
mitted. The action should have been brought against
the witness Ridington, and not against Dir. Chesterton.
If Mr. Chesterton were to refuse to act upon warrants
that were sent to him, and were to decline to obey the
order of the judges and justices, he would be liable to
lose his office and to be indicted. The County Court
Act said that a person not paying his instalments might
be committed to the common gaol or House of Cot.-
Jection.
Mr. JAMES—This was only after the defendant had
been summoned a second time to state the ground of his
default. In this case nothing of the kind had been done.
Mr. WATSON proceeded.
The case had nut concluded when our report kit.