The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-13 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.

ELLIS V. 011MEMOD AND OTHERS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an engineer,
against the defendants, who are engineers, carrying on busi-
ness at Birmingham, for an infringement of a patent which
he possessed for improvements in the " turn tolls" used on
rai i ways.

The-case occupied the greater part of yesterday and the
greater part of to-day, and a number of scientific witnesses
were examined on both sides.
The parties, however, came to an arrangement to take a
verdict for the plaintiff on the issues, in which he claimed all
the possessio❑ of the patent ; and for the defendants on the
plea that the machine they manufactured was not an in-
fringment of the plaintiff's patent. Both parties to pay their
own costs.

EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
;Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD CHIEF" BAReN and

Special Juries.) ....
DUNN v. COCKS.
In this caae Richard Dunn, whose name has so often been
brought prominently before the public in connexion with
various proceedings in the courts of law, was the plaintiff ;
the defendants, ;Messrs. Cocks and Co., army agents, of Pall-
mall. The action was brought by the plaintiff, in the cha-
racter of administrator to his brother, Lieutenant Dunn, of
the 7th Foot, deceased, for the purpose of recovering from
the defeudanta a balance, alleged to be admitted by the de-
fendants as due to the representatives of Lieutenant Dunn,
upon the sale of the effects of that deceased officer.
Mr. Martin and Mr. P.ashlev appeared for the plaintiff ;
the Attorney, and the Solicitor 'General, and Mr. Waddington,
appeared for the defendants.
It appeared that the brother of the plaintiff died in the
year 1840, and the defendants, as agents of the regiment,
proceeded, in accordance with the regulations contained in
the Articles of War, to dispose of the effects of the deceased.
The plaintiff having called upon the defendants to give an
account of the disposal of the money realised upon the sale
of those effects, was informed that he must produce the
letters of administration appointing him as administrator to
the effects d deceased. Accordingly, the plaintiff obtained
letters of administration, and received from the defendants an
account of the proceeds of the sale, the last items of which
stated " to balance to credit of the public, 50/.," and a further
itent—" to balance 1991. 163. eZtd." This balance the
plaintiff now claimed as balance due to him as the represen-
tative of the deceased.
The ATTORNEY-GE:NERAL now contended that this was a
balance credited to the public, and paid into the 'War-office,
and not a balance due to the credit of the plaintiff:
Upon examining the document in question,
The LORD CHIEF BARON took the same view of the case,
and although the latter item did not contain the words "to
the credit of the public," still, as the item was
placed immediately under the one containing these
words, and as double dashes placed with the item
intended to represent " ditto," " ditto," " ditto,"
it was clear that the sum had been paid over to the public
credit, and not a balance due to the plaintiff. Whether the
agent were authorised so to dispose of the money or not was
not a question now before the Court.
Plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Guildhall, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, and
a Common Jury.)
HUMPHRIES V. SHUTTLEWORTH.
This was an action brought by a broker in the City, to re-
cover from the defendant the sum of 251. for a share trans-
action. The amount claimed was for commission in buying
the shares, and the loss between the price at which they
were purchased for the defendant, and subsequently so/d.
From the evidence it appeared, that the plaintift had been
instructed to purchase for the defendant fifty railway shares.
He procured the shares from another broker at three-eighths
premium,but when they were offered to the defendant he said
it was a bad job, and wished him to do the best he
could with them. They were then cold at par. For the
defence, it was urged that no regular bargain for the
shares bad ever been made, and that the :hares when pur-
chased at the three-eighths premium were not paid for by
the plaintiff at the time, but that he subsequently returned
them to the party from whom they originally came as un-
sold shares.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for 211. ss.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY.)
This morning, ?Ir. Commissioner Gomamini again called
the attention of the bar to the operation of the New Bank-
rupt and Insolvent Act, as regarded traders who had no
assets to diviite amongst their creditors. His Honour re.
peated his opinion that such persons did not come within the
meaning of the Act, and his opinion was supported by Sir
George Rose, one of the Judges of the Court of Review. Ha
had not, however, yet obtained the opinion of his Brother
Commissioners, and was doubtful how he ought to act.
Mr. Cooke, Mr. Nicholls, and Mr. Lucas addressed the
Court, and said that the Act presented very great difficulties
indeed.

His HONOUR said, that as the law had been acted
upon all persons were placed on the same footing—
the man that had squandered away everything and the man
who had 15s. in the pound, they both got liberated if in
prison, and protection if out of it, unless fraud was proved.
He had no doubt that it also led to concealment of property,
and, what was a greater evil, drove merchants and traders
from coming before the Court with its legitimate business,
and drove them into holes and corners to make arrangements.
An inscription to this effect might now be placed over the
doors of the Court : " For debtors immediate release and pro-
tection ; for creditors, 0 0 0." He was obliged to the Bar
for its suggestions, and would decide the point after he had
beard the opinions of his brother Commissioners.

LONDON SESSIONS.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before theyor EI
RECORD , and Alderman Joirssort for the Lord
Ma, JDUKE, and Sir C. .
Phillip Isaacs, Sir
a member of the HaIIMARSHALL
of Commerce
in
Threadneedle-street, was int i ‘ted for having committed an
assault on Edward Joseph, on the 28th December last.
The prosecutor said, that the day in question he was at the
Hall of Commerce, and purchased a great number of shares,
and went into the coffee-house to get change for a sove-
reign. Whilst standing at the bar, speaking to a gentleman,
he heard some one say, "Take care of your pockets, take
care of that swindler." He did not understand at the mo-
ment that the observation was applied to him, but went to
the other end of the table where defendant was sitting, and
asked him if he addressed him (prosecutor) when defendant
without making any reply took up a short cane with a
hooked handle and struck at him, but missed ; he then struck
again, and gave prosecutor a "dreadful and brutal" blow on
the temple. He went to the Lord Mayor and took out a
summons, but could not attend, as he was ill in bed, he was
obliged to keep his bed two days, and after he had been out
he was confined two days more.
Cross-examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I live at No. 10,
Gloucester- place, Hoxton. I did not desire my attorney not
to say where I lived in order to avoid notice of trial being
served on me. I had no medical attendance except a female,
an old woman, as I have an objection to medical men, as
they make such long bills. Had heard that defendant had
lost his wife, and had heard that he had buried her without
the rites of a Jewess. To the best of his knowledge he was
not speaking about it. Did not recollect whether he spat in
the face of defendant or not ; if he did it was after he re-
ceived the blow. Had been excluded ever since from the
coffee-room by Mr. Mosey, the proprietor.
M. Gardin, a French gentleman, was called—He proved
the assault, but could not tell what passed previously.
Mr. CLARK...go:I addressed the jury, and said that as the
prisoner had not ventured to deny spitting in the defendant's
face, the jury would be justified in finding the defendant not
guilty, on the ground that he bad been grossly provoked.
The RECORDER, in summing up, said that if the alleged
provocation had been given, although it might be imprudent
for a man to use a cane, yet the indignity was beyond
endurance, and it was next to impossible for a man to re-
main passive under such an atrocious insult ; and although
it would be regretted that a person should receive a bodily
injury, yet a man who spat in another's face I
richly deserved the punishment with a cane, and was