The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-25 00:00:00

A PnopitiEToit suggested that the question should be
brought, in the first instance, before the Directors.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Directors could not in-
terfere in the case without the sanction of the Pro-
prietors.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
Mr. FIELD thanked the Proprietors for, the kind reso-
lution they had come to. They might go home with
the consciousness that they had relieved an excellent
individual from a weight which pressed upon him very
painfully.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEYCOGK wished to ask the Chairmon, before the
meeting separated, wkether the Proprietors had heard
anything of a determination on the part of the French
Government to commence a line ofrailway between Ca-
lais and Paris. Such a'work, if completed, would mate-
rially improve the affairs of the Company.
The CHAIRMAN:said, that the affair had been mooted
by the French Government, and he was convinced that
the project would ultimately be carried out. The question
was, in his opinion, one merely of time ; but the project
was not in a sufficiently forward state to have justified
the Directors in bringing it before the meeting. He
had lately happened to have met at Dover the Chairman
of a Company in the North, and the ex-Chairman of the
South-Western Company; and it was certainly no little sub-
ject of triumph to him to find such gentlemen on their way to
Franco preferring the Dover line even though one of
them was so largely interested in the prosperity of a
different line. But no doubt these gentlemen thought that
a voyage of two or three hours was less disagreeable
than one of twelve or thirteen hours.—(Hear.)
Mr. LEYCOCK wished to know whether the Directors
had come to any determination to establish branch-lines
to Canterbury, Margate, and other towns in the vicinity
of the main line ?

The CHAIRMAN said that no determination had yet
been come to on the subject. But that also appeared to
him to be a question of time; and the Proprietors might
depend upon it that as soon as the Directors found they
had the necessary funds they would carry out the project
referred to.

A vote of thanks Was then passed to the Chairman for
his services to the Company, and the Chairman having
returned thanks, the meeting separated.

BRITISH IRON COMPANY.
(THIS DAY.)
A meeting of the Proprietors of this Company took
place to-day at the Company's office, Broad-street, City,
for the purpose of taking a ballot with respect to the re-
solutions proposed by Captain Richardson, at the meeting
lately held at the London Tavern. Our reporter on ap-
plying for admission was told that the meeting was
strictly private, and that no person from the press would,
therefore, be allowed to attend.

-- ---
THE FUND S-(CLOSING PRICES.)
BRITISH FUNDS.
Rank Stock
••• India Stock ..... ....249
3 per Cent Red. BBk Ditto Bonds
3. per Cent Cons B9h Ditto Old Annuities ... -
3i For Cent Red.. 97i Ditte New Annuities...
New 4 per Cent i 99 Ex. Bills, 1,000/....2id 10 pm
New 5 per Cent ...i. 1 Ditto 5001.... 9 pre
Long Annuities toexpire Ditto Small. ... 9pm
Jan 1860 .. 12 7-16 Bank Stock for Acct...
Oct 1859 l2* 'lndia Stock for Acct. ... __
Jan. 1860. — 'Consols for Acct 64
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Lustrian, 5 per cent.... Portuguese, 5 per cent. 44
Belgian, 5 per cent — Ditto, New Ditto 33
Brazilian 80nd5.... sBi Prussian, 5 per cent.
Buenos Ayres, 6 per cat 'Russian, 5 per cent
Chilian, b per cent.... Ditto, Metallic
Colombian, 6 per cent.. Spanish, 5 per cent 234
Ditto, 1824 Ditto, Deferred .. 12A
Danish, 3 per cent — French, 5 per cent.ll6f. —c.
Greek, 18:6, 5 per cent — Exchange —f. —c.
Mexican, 5 per cent.... French, 3 per cent —f. —c
Ditto, 6 per cent, 1825 Dutch, 4 per cent s2h
Peruvian, 1825, 6 per et. Ditto, 5 per cent.
SHARES
Great Western Railway( 65 paid) ..... ......
' Ditto New Shares (50 paid 57 London and Brighton (50 paid)..
London and Birmingham (90) ......... ... .. 157
Ditto Quarter Shares ( S paid) . 2111
London and South Western * 57
South Eastern. and Dover (43 paid)......, l9
York and North Midland Railway (50 paid) 88
Ditto New Shares (15 paid) ......... 291

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
WILSON U. TINDALL.
Mr. PEMBERTON (with whom was Mr. Roche and Mr.
Hubbock) 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 Soames,
discovered a method of employing cocoa-nut oil in the
manufacture of candles, by subjecting it in packages of
linen and sail cloths at certain temperatures to hydraulic
pressure, whereby a substance was produced called stea-
rule, and a liquid called oleine, the former of which, after
being melted and purified in a copper vessel, was manufac-
tured into candles; and the latter, after also going through
acertain process, employed for burning in lamps and other
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, who
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. The
oil employed in this manufacture was produced from a
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 from
copperah. Shortly afterwards several workmen of the
plaintiffs entered his service, and communications taking
place between the workmen of the two establishments,
it was, in October last, communicated by defendant's
workmen to those of the plaintiff, that defendant in-
tended to make an alteration in his business, and net
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 the
patent was obtained. The plaintiffs, believing that if the
defendant made cocoa-nut candles from cocoa-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
of it 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-
mitted that the plaintiff's had brought themselves most
distinctly within the rules of law which protect patents,
and that since time discovery of a chemical principle
could 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. Soames was of this description, and
therefore the plaintiffs, as the assignees of that invention
were entitled 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. LOFTUS WIGRAM,
cited tne " Repertorlum 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, 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. T 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-
tled to an injunction ; but it was submitted on the part
of the defendant, ;hat no infringement of the patent was
proved.
Mr. PEMBERTON was about to reply, when
The MASTER of the ROLLS adjourned the further hear
ing of the case till to-morrow.

VICE CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our. Afternoon Edition.)
(Before Vice• Chancellor BRUCE.)
HAIGH V. DIXON.

This was a part-heald 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,

PRENDERGAST 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 another 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 thiat
partictilar proceeding was uuauthorized, and capable of
being successfully impeached, if impeached in dui time.