The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 11.
This was the first day of Hilary term, and according
to the arrangements that have been adopted now for
some time, of the Lord Chancellor not giving a break•
fast to the Judges, Masters in Chancery, and Queen's
Counsel, either on the first day of Hilary or Trinity
terms, the Lord Chancellor sat to-day shortly after ten
o'clock. His Lordship was occupied the whole morning
with the appeal motion of " Masterman v. Lewin," which
came before his Lordship upon an appeal from the de •
cision of the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, in an inter-
pleading of no interest whatever except to the parties
concerned.

ROLLS' COUR7', Jan. 11.
FISHER AND CROFTS V. OLIVER AND ATKINS.

This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendants, who were lace manufacturers, from using
the patented invention of the plaintiffs for an improve-
ment in the manufacture of lace. The invention, for
which the patent had been obtained in 1838, purported
to make ornamental lace at the same time with opaque
cloth, by means of additional warp threads, and was also
for making a description of lace called honeycomb. The
defendants, in their affidavits, contended that the inven •
tion, as far as it was practicable, had been in use prior to
the obtaining of the patent, and that in the other parts it
was too undefined to be ever susceptible of being re-
duced into practice, against both of which allegations
there were several affidavits from lace-machine owners,
lace manufacturers, and lace mechanics, &c.
The case for the plaintiff had not concluded at the
rising of the Court.

VICE CHANCERI' COURT , Jan. 11.
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor sat to-day in his
Court at Westminster.
THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY U. GAMBLE
AND NOTT.
Mr. BETUELL renewed his motion to-day in this case
on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Electric Telegraph Com-
pany, for an injunction to restrain the defendants,
Messrs. Gamble and Nott, from pirating, as the plaintiffs
alleged, a patent belonging to them for the construction
of electric telegraphs. Our readers will recollect that
the case came before the Court previous to the Christ-
mas recess, when we gave a short description of the
facts. The case will doubtless occupy the Court for a
day or two, if his Honour should t eAr the arguments on
both sides. Mr. Bethell, Mr. Teed, and Mr. Heathfield
are counsel fur the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Stuart and Mr.
Crompton appear for the defendants.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
ER ALTS 7. KENSIT.

This was a motion on the part of the plaintiffs for an
injunction to restrain the dkfend:tnt from proceed-
ing upon a julgment which he had obtain,d
against them. The Lcts were as follow:—The plaintiffs,
who were extensive stockbrokers, carrying on business
in the City intluced the defendant, a sol:citor of the
ccurt, to invest in Cifvernment securities a sum of

28,395/. In 1838 the defendant obtained judgment .in
the Court of Exchequer against the plaintiffs for that
amount. In February, IS4I, the debt was reduced to
13,351/., and the plaintiffs gave two securities for
10,000/., as well as an assignment to the defendant of
debts due to him, the former of which had been paid, and
a portion of the latter, which reduced the debt to 2,0951.
and for the discharge of which the plaintiffs agreed to
pay 35/. a year each during their lifetime, and to make
their effects liable for the payment of the same after
their death. The defendant, in consequence of this ar-
rangement, 'agreed not to proceed with the judgment ;
but he admitted in his answer that he applied to a com-
mon law court fir the issue of a scire facias on the
judgment he had obtained for the sum originally due to
him by the plaintifTh.
_ _

Mr. Romms, who appeared in support of the motion,
occupied the greater part of the thy in his address, and
Ills HONOUR deferred judgrai,nt till he had read the
answer.

The remainder of the day was occupied in motirms
no interest whatever.

COURT OF QUERA'S BEACH, Jan. 11.
'(Sittings in Banco.)
This was the flr.t day in Hilary Term. Nrither the
Judges nor the Queen's Counsel appeared, in this Court,
in ‘, full bottomed" wins. Before the Judges took their
seats on the bench,. the Attorney General, Sir Frederick
Thesiger, and other Learned Gentlemt n entitled, by their
position, to wear these flowing wigs, appeared in their
places with them on ; but on being informed by Mr.
Knowles, who appeared in the ordinary wig, that the
Judges in the other Courts would not appear in full
dress, they precipitately withdrew, and immediately after
appeared in their ordinary costume. During the interval
much merriment was caused by counsel in flowing wigs
taking, their seats, and on receiving the intimation re-
ferred to, hurrying out, and re=appearing instantly shorn
of very much of their " dignity."
Till POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS N. Till CITARDI,INS OF

THE POOR OF BRISTOL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved, on behalf of the
Poor-law Commissioners, for a rule, directed to the
guardians of the poor of the city of Bristol, calling upon
them to show cause why a mandamus should not be
issued commanding them to furnish Mr. Alfred Whit-
taker, an auditor appointed by the Poor•law Commis-
sioners for the Somersetshire and Wiltshire districts,
with an account in writing of all " money matters and
things " expended by them for the maintenance of the
poor for the half-year ending the 25th of March, 1844.
The parishes of which the defendants were the guar-
dians, overseers, &c., were incorporated by an Act of
Parliament entitled the 3i of George IV., c. 44, and
they were invested with authority over the poor, and
empowered to collect rates for their support. Last year
the Poor-law Commissioners issued an order to them,
amongst others, for the appointment of an auditor to
the district. Mr. Whittaker was elected in the month
/if October, the guardians and deputy guardians voting
for him. In September he gave them notice that he should
shortly attend for the purpose of auditing the accounts,
but he was met by a resolution which the directors had
passed, setting forth that the greatest pains had been
taken by them to have the accounts properly audited,
and that the intervention of the auditor would be wholly
unnecessary. They also objected to increasing the rates
by a salary to an auditor ; and finally came to the de-
termination not to submit their accounts to Mr. Whit-
taker until their liability to do so was declared by a
competent tribunal. They grounded their non-liability
on the 7 and 8 Victoria, sec. 32, c. 101, which autho-
rised the Poor-law Commissioners to combine parishes
or unions together, and to form them into districts for
the auOiting of their accounts by the proper officer.
They contended that their district was not a parish or
union within the meaning of that Act. Now he (the
Attorney-General) held that the interpretation clause
appended to the Act put an end to this objection, inas-
much as it stated that parishes or unions should be held
to mean parishes or unions specified as such under any
local Act.—Rule granted.

THE QUEEN V. WATSON.

This ease was tried in this Court during the last term,
before the Lord Chief Justice. The defendant was in-
dicted for indecently assaulting a child, and for indecently
exposing his person in a public place, the public place
being Paddington Churchyard. He was found guilty of
the indecent expoaure. The case was fully reported in
The Son at the time.
Sir F. TIIESIGER now moved for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant
or in arrest of judgment. There were three counts, but
the verdict of guilty, he understood, was only taken in
the first, which stated that the defendant in an open
and public place

Lord DENmas—l understand the defendant is no
in Court.

Sir F. THESIGER —lle is under recognizances, my
Lord. lam merely applying for a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant.
If your Lordship thinks it would be more convenient to
make my motion when the defendant comes up for judg-
ment, I will defer it until then.
LORD DENMAN said that was the invariable rule.
Tke matter then dropped.
srms AND WIFE V. HENDERSON.
This case was tried before Lord Denman at the last
sittings after term, when a verdict was found for the
plaintiffs for upwards of 10,0001.
Mr. MARSTON now applied to have the verdict set
aside, and, with the leave of the Learned Judge, to enter
a nonsuit, and al-) to have the judgment arrested.
The case arose out of certain proceedings in the Su-
preme Court of Newfoundland, which, it was contended,
had exceeded its powers.

-T-he COURT tool: time to consider the various objec
Lions raised.

COKE V. SIR - TOMKIN.

This was tried before the Under-Sherriff in July last,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the full
amount claimed. It was an action brought by the
plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the Oxford Chronicle,
against the defendant, as one of the members of the
provisional committee of the Oxford and High Wycombe
Junction Railway, to recover the amount of a bill in-
curred by advertising the prospectus of the company in
his newspaper.
A rule was subsequently obtained in the Bail Court
by Mr. Finn, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why the verdict should not be set aside on two grounds—
first, that the advertisements must be taken on the credit
of the solicitor of the company and not upon his prin-
ciPala, and secondly, that if they could not be taken
Upon his credit, that his principals were the managing
committee, and not the provisional committee, and that
the defendant was not a member of the managing corn-
,. mcamitteeeo,nbtof the provisional committee. The case now
Mr. MA.yr:27l.ra t*
that if any evidenpc:e aPPeared for the plaintiff, admitted
ihdoadthte-een adduced at the trial that the
committee had
8d
had
for the advertise-
ments, or that the solicitor charged the committee
for them, or that the defendant,
rstooalincT the solicitor, andtor, and that the
other member
of the committee, were liable to theo
plaintiffs must consequently look
net to the committee, the objection
would
sessed some force; but it was wholly untenable,have
atternptei - •
raised at the last moment, when the plaintiffs
to prove the liability of the provisional committee,
and, therefore, that the attorney was m
agent, and could not be. held- liable. Ageelv thsar
a number of authorities in support of this view. quoted
was el ilence that the defendant gave his
verbal consent to the placing of his name on the
committee, that he attended its meetings, and that the
newspapers containing the prospectus were at these
, times lying on the table of the committee-room. The
case was properly left to the jury by the Under-Sheriff.
S. Mr. FINN contended, on the other hand, that there was
. • no evidence adduced to show that the solicitor had re-
ceived orders from the committee. Such orders were

.:. not usuglly,given by a solicitor, but by the secretary,
~,iihdkietlieliiinder the directions of,his Committee. He
isi t• I. . uaktr,- authority to act in the way he did. Were
~...; -----thitt, then( to be held liable for his acts? The
-_ _work , was/ done after the 30th of November, and
Lc ~..,, after the appointment of a managing committee,
;' who took upon themselves the sole management of the
~--kj. k dt--) nfiirs of the company. A provisional committeeman
.- . rir ---
"I

`,ty ~a-„c ~~~

- a