The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-26 00:00:00

- tator's will would not have married and had children, it
which case the legatees would not have taken. IL f
thought the condition attached to the legatees for .11,
payment within three years of the debts due from then-',
to him at the time of his decease was a condition 10
which time was not essential. He was therefore of
I opinion that the petitioners were entitled to the legacies,
and also to the costs of the petition.
WILSON V. TINDALL.
Mr. PEMBERTON (with whom was Mr. Roche and Mr.
Hubbnck) moved for an injunction to restrain the defen
dant from the infringement of a patent belonging to the
plaintiffs. In the year 1829, a gentleman. named Soarnes,
discovered a method of employing cocoa-nut oil in tht
manufacture of candles, by subjecting it, in packages o:
linen and sail cloth, at certain temperatures to hydraulic
pressure, whereby a substance was produced called stea-
rine, and a liquid called oleine, the fornier of which, after
being melted and purified in a copper vessel, was manufac-
tured into candles; and the latter, afteralso going through
a certain process, employed for burning in lamps and othci
purposes. For this invention Mr. Soames obtained a patent
on the 9th of September, 1829, and enrolled a speci
fication of it on the 9th March, 1830. On the 20th
March Mr. Soames sold his patent to the defendants,
Mr. Wilson, and a gentleman named Lancashire, win
were Russia brokers, by whom it was again sold in
1834 to gentlemen engaged by Mr. Wilson
.in the ma•
nufacture of cocoa-nut candles, and now carrying it on
at Belmont, Vauxhall, and in the Island of Ceylon,
under the firm of Edward Price and Company. Tht
oil employed in this manufacture was produced from I.
substance called copperah, which consists of the
dried kernel of the cocoa-nut. At the period . of
the discovery a duty of 30 per cent. was imposed
on the exportation of copperah at the Island of
Ceylon, but which a short time ago was
reduced to two-and-a-half per cent. On this reduction
of the duty, Mr. Tindall, the defendant, determined to
avail himself of it, and established a manufactory at
Hackney, for the purpose of making cocoa-nut oil freer.
copperah. Shortly afterwards several workmen of !ht
plaintiffs entered his service, and communications taking
place between the workmen of the two establishments,
it was, in October last, communicated by defendant':
workmen to those of the plaintiff, that defendant in-
tended to make an alteration in his business, and not
only to manufacture cocoa-nut oil from copperah, but
also candles from cocoa-nut oil. Upon being
informed of this, plaintiff wrote to the defendant
on the second day of November last, informing
him of their patent and specification, and that if he in-
fringed it, legal proceedings would be commenced against
him, to which defendant, on the same day, replied, that
the process he used was not the same as that described
in the specification, but founded on a principle to be found
in scientific works published many years before tht
patent was obtained. The plaintiffs, believing that if tin.
defendant made cocoa-nut candles from cocca-nut oil
subjected to pressure, he was violating their property,
although there might be some variation in the mode in
which the pressure was applied, filed a bill for an injunc-
tion to restrain him from so doing on the 17th November,
and it being thought better, instead of obtaining the in-
junction upon an ex parte application, to give notice
ofit, the matter now came on for discussion with all the
information that could be afforded by the evidence of
both parties. Under these circumstances, it was sub
witted that the plaintiffs had brought themselves most
distinctly within the rules of law which protect patents.
and that since the discovery of a chemical principle
cotild not be the subject of a patent, but only the appli-
cation of it to the production of a new material, the
invention of Mr. Sonnies was of this description, and
therefore the plaintiffs, as the assignees of that invention
were entitltd to the injunction ; and, moreover, if this
were not the case, that as they had been in the uninter-
rupted enjoyment of the patent for a number of years,
and had expended a capital of 35,0001. in working it, the
Court would continue them in the uninterrupted enjoy-
ment of it, by granting an absolute and positive in-
junction.

Mr. TURNER with whom was Mr. Lorrus WIGRAM,
cited the " liepertorium of Arts," and Dr. Thompson's
" System of Chemistry," to prove that the fact that
stearine and oleine might be produced from oily
animal and vegetable substances by hydraulic pres-
sure, was known many years ago, and also cited
Brunton v. Hawkes, 4 Barn. and Adolp. 541, to
prove that if there were a known principle appli-
cable to certain purposes, a patent could not be obtained
for the application of that principle to precisely similar
purposes, and the Learned Gentleman contended that the
patent in question, was to apply the same pressure to
a substance called cocoa nut oil, to produce the
same result, and that, in point of law, the patent was
therefore bad. Moreover the process now used by the
plaintiffs was not the same as that used by them when
the patent was obtained, there being a difference of eight
degrees in the temperature at which the pressure is ap-
plied. The plaintiffs having, therefore, departed from
the use of the patent, it was contended that if they could
make out a case of infringement they would not be enti •
tied to an injunction ; but it was submitted on the part
of the defendant, that no infringement of the patent was
proved.
_ _

Mr. PEMBERTON was about to reply, when
The MASTER of the Rom.s adjourned the further hear
Log of the case till to-morrow.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 25.
(Before Vice-Chancellor BRUCE.)
HAIGH V. DIXON.
This was a part-heard demurrer, and engaged the
Court the greater portion of the morning. It was totally
devoid interest.
A few motions of course, not entered on the paper,
were disposed of by his Honour in the course of the day.
PRENDF.RGAST v. TURTON.
The arguments in this cause were brought to a close
to-day.
His HONOUR in giving judgment said that with re-
spect to the question raised by the defendant's counsel
as to the making of certain individuals parties to the suit,
he had thought it the best course to reserve it till the
case had been fully heard, either on the part of
the plaintiffs or of the plaintiffs and defendants. The
cause had been now fully heard, and it was not his
Honour's opinion that the plaintiff's had made out a case
by which the Court would be justified in giving them re-
lief. It would therefore be hard and useless to enter
into an investigation of the question of parties, and ac-
cordingly he would, not give an opinion on the points
There was anothzr part of the case upon which he did
not think it necessary to decide. He wished to
be understood as not in any way deciding that
the course pursued by the Directors of the Com
pany with regard to the forfeiture of the plaintiff's
shares, was one which ought to have been pur-
sued, or capable of being maintained, if questioned in
due time. The opinion at which he had arrived as to
that point was, that the judgment which he found it his
duty to pronounce was entirely consistent with the
supposition that all they did with reference to that
particular proceeding was unauthorized, and capable of
being successfully impeached, if impeached in due time.
Now, with respect to the plaintiffs and their discussions
with the Directors, those discussions were brought to a
close in 1828, and from that period till the time the
]resent claim was made, they (the plaintiffs) never resided
out of the Queen's dominions, living occasionally in the
island of Jersey and occasionally in England. They
might, thereibre, have made themselves acquainted with
what was going forward. In the interval the mine being
in difficulties, and the plaintiffs refusing to contribute the
necessary money beyond thenominal amount °fate original
shares, some of the parties interested in the speculation
were found willing to struggle with the difficulties, and
make a hazard in working the mine, which they ac-
cordingly did during the years intervening between
1830 and 1836, when the speculation became some-
what profitable, and the Company became entirely
remodelled, and then, and not till then, the
plaintiffs, who had apparently retired from the
concern when they had found it necessary to ad-
vance money which they were not willing to give, put
forward their claim. In that state of things, his Honour
found it impossible to say that the plaintiffs should be
assisted. It was impossible according to established
principles, as he viewed' them, to give relief to the plain-
tiffs. With regard to the question of costs, he would
hear defendant's Counsel on it.
Mr. SWANSTON, on the part of defendant, stated that
his clients did not seek to have the costs allowed them.
No other cause of interest came before the Coat
during the day. His Honour rose at three o'clock.
During the few clays that will elapse,
before the Sittings after Term commence, the
great mass of business to be disposed of in Chancery be-
tore the beginning of Hilary Term, will be so distri-:
bated as to guard against the confusion in the general
list of causes which was unavoidably consequent on the
late arrangements in the Equity Courts on the establish-
ment of the new Vice-Chancery Courts.
(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
His
HONoUR this morning allowed all the exceptions
except the fifteenth.

The forth RAMIE V. CADIES.
tin ued
honour
a
er hearing of this part-heard cause was con-
that his onour will take time to consider his judgment,
great part of the day. It is expected
the documents in the cause being very numerous.

QUEEN'S _
COURT ap
THE QUEEN V. THE WARDENS
Tho COURT gave
rule for a mandamus to
OMP.&
jud admit"'
The return set forth that tha BENCH, Nov. 25.
, &C., OF THE SCRIVENERS'
the
this case, which was a
prosecutor, he having
served the whole of his time, te.)4:Tic.thr had not served
his time in the terms of,
the 7 Scriveners' Company.
Gee. 111., which were almost identical se'etiu'l of
of the
41st
Sth section of the Act Geo. If. On thhr.
,iltvh those
was joined, and on the trial before Mr. ,
Tetirent issue
,aule,
at York, a verdict was taken for the Crown' CO
M
the opinion of the Court upon the special ease ‘sv'lTt..i.helt: t(b
been agreed during the present tei in. It appeared plat
during.the last five years of his time, the prosecutor had
served his master as an- attorney, and the Compa.,,
alleged that the services were of a nature which wer":,
incompatible with the provisions of the Act, when
coupled with different services under the same master.
The Court was of opinion that the present was clearly iL
question of fact, and if the master really carried on the
business of a notary, and the prosecutor's services were•
bona fide given whenever the business required them,
the qualification described in the Act had been obtained,
such service not being incompatible with the prose-
cution -of other studies. The Attorney-General had
himself admitted that a party so serving his
time, might be engaged in literary studies
or give lessons in them, such studies being subordinate
to the contract which he had entered into with his mas-
ter, and not interfering with it. If that were so, they
could discover no reason why his services as an attorney
should be considered incompatible, that service not im-
peding his contract ; and indeed such business inclining
the mind to legal pursuits, might be said to be favour-
able to such a service. That
any of the authorities that had been cited in • h
t evourse

-if the argument, and their judgment, therefore must be
For the Crown.
CHE QUEEN V. THE EARL OE WALDEGRAVE AND CAPT.

DUFF.

The Cotrxr gave judgment in this case, which was a
rule to set aside a side bar rule, which had been obtained
for giving costs to the Commissioners of Police, the pro-
;ecutors in an assault committed upon a constable of
that force. The application was made under the pro-
visions of the sth William and Mary, cap. 11. sect. 3,
which provided in express terms, that if a defendant pro-
secuted under a writ of certiorari, should be convicted
under such writ, then the Court of Queen's Bench would
;rant such reasonable costs to the party prosecuting, if
he be the party aggrieved or injured, or to any Justice of
the Peace, or other public civil officer, prosecuting on
account of any fact committed, or that concerned
him or them as such civil officers to prosecute or pre-
sent, as the Court should deem fit. The Commissioners
of Police were constituted under a particular Act of Par-
liament for certain purposes therein set forth. Under
the terms of that Act, it was difficult for the Court to
feel any doubt that the Commissioners of Police were
entitled to the costs of an indictment which they had
preferred, for an assault committed upon ene of their
,übordinate officers, which had been removed by the
defendant by certiorari, and under which a conviction
had taken place. The Court was of opinion that the
Commissioners clearly answered the description of civil
officers, even if they had not been Justices of the Peace.
Under the plain words of the Act of Parliament there-
:ore, the Court was of opinion that the Commissioners
were entitled to the costs, and that the present rule
must be discharged.
In the cases of " Gardner v. M'Mahon," and " Thomas
v. Reece," the Court granted rules for new trials.

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE.- SUDDEN CLOSE OF TERM

The Court then went through the bar, which was by
this time pretty fill, beginning with the junior counsel
and took a few motions of course. Several Counsel
within the bar, on being called upon to move, excuse°
themselves on the plea that they were waiting for some
of their Learned Brethren who were engaged in the
other Courts. Business being at a stand still for some
minutes,

Lord bEsmAN said they would be obliged to adjourn
the Court if there was no business before it. The Judges
could not remain sitting there and looking at the Counsel.
After a delay of a few minutes, Lord DENMAN again
inquired if any gentleman had any motion to make, and
the same answer was again given by several of the
Counsel, namely, that they were waiting for other gen-
tleman who were not present.
Lord DENMAN said the Court felt that it had been
very much trifled with, and then added in a peremptory.
tone, " Adjourn the Court--this term is at an end ! '
The Judges and the Bar immediately rose, the latter
in a state of some excitement, and Mr. Kelly said he
was about to make a motion, and hoped the Court would
hear him.

Lord DENMAN (who, with the other Judges, still re-
mained standing) said if the Court was to be postponed
for the convenience of gentlemen, it was time to put a
stop to such a state of things. They owed it to them-
selves, and they owed it to the suitors whose interests
were involved, to show to all parties concerned what the
practice was.

Mr. KELLY again addressed the Judges, and begged
they would allow him to proceed. He regretted the ab-
sence of the gentlemen who had occasioned the present
inconvenience.

Lord DENMAN said the minds of the Judges were made
up. The gentlemen who were present were those who,
in his opinion, were in fault.
The Judges then retired, and the Court remained for
some minutes im a state of considerable excitement.
There was a little angry recrimination among the solici-
tors and gentlemen of the Bar, here and there ; a good
deal of loud talking, some laughter, and a few jokes ;
after which the Court gradually emptied ; and thus
ended :vlichaelmas Term at eleven o'clock in the fore-
noon, instead of, as is generally the case, nine o'clock
at night.

BAIL COURT, Nov 25.

GOODMAN V. MORELL.-THE ARGUMENT ON DUTTON'.

HOLES.

Our readers will doubtless ;;Collect that Mr. Hoggins
he other day obtained a rule to show cause why a plea
setting forth the illegality of certain button-holes, as a
reason for non-payment of a tailor's bill, should be set
aside. This important case came on for argument this
day, and
Mr. KNOWLES appeared in support of the plea. The
Learned Counsel appeared to have studied the subject of
button-holes deeply, and from his researches it appears that
there are no less than three chapters on button-holes in the
statutes at large—the first beingpassed in the reign of Win.
111., so that Protestantism and button-holes equally occu-
pied the attention of a Parliament, to the members of which
Popery and cloth buttons appear to have been equally
obnoxious. One part of Mr. Knowles's argument is too
rich to be omitted. The Learned Counsel in grave and
solemn manner uttered the following words :—" I con-
tend, my Lord, that the plaintiff ought to have demur-
red. This is the first time that a rule of this sort has
ever been obtained to set aside a plea. It is a matter of
too solemn a nature to be argued in this way."
Mr. Justice PArrEsoN—Really if you wish to stand
upon this trumpery plea it must stand alone, and you
must strike out the plea of the general issue.
Mr.. Hocoms —My Learned Friend must make his
election which plea he will stand upon.
Mr. Justice PATTESON-Exactly so.
MANDAMUS.—THE QUEEN V. THE BIRMINGHAM AND
GLOUCESTER RAILWAY COMPANY.:
Mr. Sergeant TALFounro moved for a rule for a man-
damus directing the Birmingham and Gloucester Rail-
way Company to take measures for impanelling a Jury
to assess the compensation due to a gentleman named
Guest. It appeared that the lands of Mr. Guest are situated
near the line of Railway, and that .these had hitherto
been irrigated by the waters of the river, but that in
consequence of the works of the Company the river
had been deepened, and Mr. Guest's lands had been de-
prived of the advantage they had hitherto enjoyed. Ne-
gotiations had taken place between the parties, but had
led to no satisfactory result, and this application had
consepently become necessary.—Application granted.
BUSLNESS OF THE COURT.
On the SOLICITOR-GENERAL rising to support a rule
which he had obtained the other day in this Court, in
the case of Duke v. Watchorn, to set aside an execution
under a warrant of attorney,
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that, before proceed-
ing any further, they had better come to some
understanding as to the business of the Court.
He thought that everything moved in this Court ought
to have the preference, at all events. It would not be
fair that they should be flooded with the business of the
other Court. He should, therefore, dispose of the
causes moved in this Court first, and after that, if there
should be any time left, he should be happy to hear the
causes from the other Court, so long as the Term lasted
(i. e. until midnight).
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded with his
argument. The case was one interesting only to the
parties concerned.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " WORCESTER-
SHIRE CHRONICLE."--THE QUEEN V. ARROWSMITH.
In this case the Solicitor-General had, early in the
present Term, obtained a rule nisi against the defendant
for the publication of a libel reflecting on the character
of Mr. Rickets, a Magistrate of Worcestershire.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD having been this day called
upon to show cause against the rule, stated that this was
the first time the proprietor of this Paper had ever been
before a Court of Justice, either in a civil or criminal cause;
thathe had inserted the article in question on information
on which he thought he could rely; that he had since
discovered that he had been misled; that he since
made inquiry, and was perfectly satisfied that in the
transactions alluded to there was nothing that was in
the slightest degree derogatory to the character of Mr.
Ricketts. He expressed his deep regret for what had
occurred, and, through his Counsel, begged to make to
Mr. Ricketts the most ample and unreserved apology.
Under these circumstances, it would be for his Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General to state whether he would
press the rule. Of course Mr. Arrowsmith would pay
all the costs.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the application had
had been made by Mr. Ricketts, solely for the purpose
of satisfying the public that there was no truth in the
imputations which had been cast upon him. The
Learned Solicitor-General then, on behalf of his client,
expressed his willingness to accept the apology, and
consented to the rule being discharged on the defendant
paying all the costs.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—This is exceedingly hand-
some conduct on the part of Mr. Ricketts, and .1 beg to
be understood as making, on behalf of my client, the
must ample and unreserved apology.

THE QUEEN V. JOHN TRAVIS.
In this case Mr. hays had obtained a rule for removing
the depositions by certiorari into this Court, and for ad-
mitting the defendant to bail in that Court. It will be
recollected that the defendant had been committed by a
Lancashire Magistrate on a charge of feloniously and
maliciously stabbing the horse belonging to Mr. Ent-
wistle, who, while out hunting, had trespassed on the
grounds of the defendant's father. From the affidavits
in support of the rule, it appeared that Mr. Entwistle had
rode at defendant, who had held out a pitchfork to de-
fend himself, and that Mr. Entwistle had ridden against it
Mr. HoGGiNs this day appeared to show cause against
the rule, and read the affidavit of Mr. Entwistle, in
which that gentleman distinctly denied having ridden at
the defendant; but said that while riding in a lane he
heard his huntsman's cry in defendant's father's field,
when he rode into it, and found there the two Travises,
Butterworth, the huntsman, and the hounds ; that he
rode up to them, and Travis, the defendant, deli-
berately and maliciously thrust his fork into•
the horse. That the defendant was employed
in getting in potatoes. but the fork with which defendant
stabbed the horse was not a fork used in such work, but
a pitchfork, which was polished and sharpened. Mr.
Entwis& said that he gathered from what passed be-
tween Travis and the huntsman, that the Travises were
displeased at his passing through the field, when he ob-
served to defendant's brother, "If we are trespassing we
will get out, and that immediately." Afterwards the
defendant stabbed his horse. Mr. Entwistle denied that he
was riding at the defendant, but swore distinctly that he
had. drawn up at the time for purpose of speaking to
the Travisos. In this Mr. Entwistle's affidavit was
corroborated by the affidavit of his huntsman and game-
keeper. Mr. noggins was proceeding with his argu-
ment, when

Mr. Justice PATTESON said that it did not appear the depositions had yet been returned.
Mr. HAYES—They ought to have been returned. I
obtained a certiorari to return them.
Mr. Justice P they are not in C
ATTESON—If
ourt we
cannot go on. that

.111:r.ilAYEs—I put copies of them into your Lordship's
hands on moving the rule. It is not our fault that they
are not here. It is the fault of the other side.
Mr. HOGGINS—Oh, no ; it is the fault of the Magis-
trate.

HARES---We served the rule on the Magistrate.

Mr. HoGGINs—You cannot make your rule absolute.
Your only course is to proceed against the Magistrate.
Mr. JusticefAirrEso—Seine one ought to appear
for the "Magistrate. Mr. 11,:g!.finS, do you ?
Mr. HOGGINS—Oh, no, 111) Lord ; I appear only for
the prosecutor. Perhaps it would he. better to enlarge
the rule, and have it heard at Chambers.
Mr. justice PAI'TESON—I do not think there will be
much difficulty in the case. It is admitted on all hands
that the man was in a passion. It can scarcely be con-
sidered a case of maliciously stabbing.
Mr. HAYES—I hope your Lordship will fix the amount
of bail.

Mr. HOGOINS—Stop, stop. It is not quite certain yet.
I do not know how my client may act.
Mr. llAvEs—Really this conduct is not very creditable
to Mr. Entwistle.

Mr. HOGGINS—I will speak to my client on the sub-
ject, and state to him what has fallen from yc ur Lordship.
Mr. HAl:Es—Will your Lordship fix the amount of
bail ?

Mr. Justice PATTESON—HimseIf in 2001. and four
sureties in 50/..ench.

Mr. HAYES—He is a poor man, my Lord.
Mr. Hoooncs observed that defendant's father had an
estate.

Mr. HAYES—The defendant is one of a large
Mr. Justice l'A'nTisoN—l do not wish to be hard upon
him. Let him give bail, himself in 150/., and four
sureties in 40/. each. He will have no difficulty in doing
that. I should think.
Mr. HAYES—Thank your Lordship.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 25.
THE QUEEN v. HOYLE.

Itr. CRESWELL and Mr. CO;;LITN7Gwere heard this
morning in support of the rule for setting aside the in-
quisition and extent which had been issued against the
land and goods of the defendant. They contended that
it was clear the inquisition was not legal, inasmuch as no
evidence, in fact, had been laid before the Jury. In no
other case could evidence upon affidavit be laid before
Jury. They contended further, that according to the
act, the Bth of Edward 1., the party against whom the
proceedings were directed was to be summoned. He
had a right to be present at the inquisition, and being
present he had a right to cross-examine the witnesses,
which right would be abrogated if the evidence were
taken by affidavit. It was no answer to the case to say
that the practice had prevailed for some time ; if it was
illegal, which they contended it was, it wa-s the duty of
the Court to set it aside.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, and
The COURT said they were of opinion that the rule
ought to be discharged. As the inquest taken underfa
Commission of that Court, in order to find if any debt to
the Crown existed, was ex parte, there was nothing in
it analogous, to a trial at nisi pries, and therefore it was
not necessary that the evidence should be given viva
voce. The intention of the Legislature was to give the
Crown a more speedy means of recovering its debts,
which would be taken away if tile rule were made abso-
lute. It was the duty of the Cou"rt to support the prac-
tice as it existed from ancient Aiinqs all cases where
such practice was not 'There was nothing illegal
in giving evidence before a Jury summoned under a Com-
mission to inquire, as in this case, therefore the rule must
be discharged.

As usual, upon the last day of term, the remainder of
the clay was occupied with motions, all of which were of
a purely technical nature.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 25.

CHAPMAN V. DENIS.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange, which was
.ried at Westminster on the first day of the sittings in
:his term, and in which the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit,
consequence of the absence of a witness, who was
called upon his subpoena, and -upon whom the plaintiff
professed to rely for procf of the hand-writing. Mr.
Sergeant Bompas since obtained a rule nisi for an at-
tachment against the witness in contempt.
Mr. Sergeant ACHERLEY now showed cause against
the rule, and put in affidavits averring that the absence
of the witness was accidental and not in contempt, and
that he had attended during the whole of two former
days when the case was set down for trial. The
Learned Sergeant further showed that the plaintiff'
did not go on with his case as far as he
could, as be (plaintiff) had in his brief another witness,
whom he might have called to prove the hadwriting.
He contended, therefore, that the witness, not having
intentionally disobeyed the Court, did not deserve
punishment at their Lordships' hands, and that the
plaintiff, having clearly taken advantage of the acci-
dental absence of one witness, as a pretext for aban-
doning a case in which he was conscious he had no
ground of action, had suffered no injury for which he
was entitled to ask compensation from the Court.
Mr. Sergeant ROMP AS replied.
The COURT was of opinion that although the witness
was guilty of great neglect, yet he had shown that he bad
not wilfully disobeyed the Court, and as the plaintiff
could not show that he had necessarily lost his cause
through the conduct of the witness in question, but on
the contrary acted as if he knew the weakness of his
case, the rule must be discharged, however without
costs, as the witness was not wholly blameless.
Mr. Sergeant BomeAs.then submitted that the person
in contempt ought to repay the plaintiff 241., being the
amount which he had paid fur the defendant's costs. In
a parallel case, where an attachment applied for against
Lord John Russell was refused, on the ground (as here)
that he was not a material witness, and that he had not
been guilty of wilful contempt, his Lordship, notwith-
standing, paid the costs.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that the application
was too late, on this the last day of term, to be made,
unless upon affidavits, and after notice duly given.
PARISH OF ST. PANCRAS.--DOUGLAS V. CHALK.
This was an action brought to enforce the payment of
a paving-rate. The particulars have already been fully
reported in The Sun. The defence turned upon several
points, of which the principal were, that the district, East
Pancras, represented by the defendants, was not liable,
and that the rate was ante-dated. The verdict was for
the defendant, and upon the rule obtained for a new trial,
The COURT now gave judgment for the defendants.
Their Lordships, without determining any of the other
points in the case, decided that the "rate, being ante-
datvd, was illegal."

ADMIRALTY COURT, .Nov. 24.
THE WASHINGTON COLLISION.
The Court in this case was assisted by Captain Drew
and another of the elder brethren of the Trinity House,
the question being one of nautical skill. A preliminary
question arose as to to the admissibility of an affidavit?
which the Court, after hearing advocates, rejected.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said it was his duty to explain to the
gentlemen by whom he was assisted, the position in
which the case stood. The original action was brought
by the owners of the Catherine against the owners of the
Washington, and some time afterwards a suit was
commenced by the latter against the former. The
collision took place on the 21st of July, in the
British Channel. The Catherine was beating down
the channel, closely hauled on the larboard tack
The Washington was on the larboard tack also,
beating down. Sapposing there had been a good look
out, and if the well-known rule of navigation on the sea
had been adopted, the collision could not have taken
place. There must have been either negligence or error
on the part of one or both. The master of the Cathe-
rine had stated that 114 had signalled the Washington to
put her helm up. The duty of the Catherine was to have
kept her course, except under circumstances of the most
pressing necessity. The statement of the master of the
Washington was that being on the starboard tack the
helm, was put hard on weather, .so as to go
to the leeward of the Catherine, which vessel
had put up her helm, and almost immediately put
it clown again, by which conduct the collision occurred.
There could be no doubt that the Catherine had
acted as had been stated. The gentlemen by whom the
Court was assisted would hare to decide if the Catherine
had done wrong in putting her helm up, and immediately
afterwards putting it down, if she had done so. As
to the-Washington the gentlemen would also decide if
the Washington had done right in the course taken by
her. The Court, therefore, wished to know if one or
both were to blame.

The Trinity Masters, after a few minutes' consultation,
gave their opinion to the Learned Judge.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said the gentlemen by whom the
Court was assisted were of opinion that both vessels
were to blame ; that under the circumstances the Ca-
therine had acted wrong, and that the Washington had
not done with sufficient promptitude that which was
required of her in due course. The decision of the
Court must therefore be that the damages and costs
must be borne between each party.

COURT OF •BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 24.
IN RE AUGUSTUS BORTE.
The bankrupt carried on business as a tailor in Sack.
ville-street, Piccadilly, and this.day was fixed for the
choice of assignees. The debts proved in the course of
the day amounted to 3,217 L 7s. 11d. ; and Mr. Charles
Earl, of Sackville-street, mercer, and Mr. James Locke,
of Regent-street, mercer, were chosen assignees.
FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCUANGE.—IN RE HILL AND BROOKS.
This day was appointed for the choice of assignees in
the matter of these bankrupts, who carried on business
as merchants in St. Mary-axe.
Several proofs were admitted without any opposition.
Mr. Harriss claimed to prove for bills to the amount
of 49C1. 10s., which were part of a large number he had
taken from Coles, Thompson, and Harris/4 who were now
indebted to him in the sum of 15,0781. 19s. 5d., and all
his securities were set out in his account with that firm.
Mr. Commissioner EVANS—De you think you will
have enough under their estate to pay you in full ?
Mr. Harrisa—No, Sir, and I would gladly give you 5,000/.
to pay me the difference.
Mr. Oxley, of the firm of Masterman and Co., bankers,
claimed to prove upon a bill for 4951., which had been
deposited with their house, with other bills, as security
for advances made by them to Coles, Thompson, and
Harriss, who were. now bankruts. This bill was not
receiveensedd
obay
thethem,day abte theyhe could not
stopped
say whether
payment
(n. it laVt aas,
former period, as they had a fresh advance on that day, ,
and had proved against their estate for this bill.—Claim
admitted.
Mr. Pilcher, of Toole .street
to
street, claimed to prove upon
two bills of exchange, atn
pur-
ported to have been drawn by Douglas and Co., of Guern-
sey, and upon unstamped paper.
It was objected to
by Mr. Chambers, that there was
in reality no such firm as Douglas and Co. trading at
Guernsey, where the bills were datelCl2,4:ni" which d
that they
were fabricated in London.
The Official Assignee said the matter stood thus :
He had been informed that these bills had been drawn
by a person named Mace, in London, under the names
of Douglas and Co., and also accepted by him. -
Mr. Commissioner Evans—Then the proof must be
adjourned for further inquiry ; and if its adjournment
had been at all calculated to affect the choice of assig-
nees, I would have adjourned the choice. Mr. Thompson
should have been here to give some explanation of the
transaction.