The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Jan. 23.
STIR ENS V. KEATING.

His Lordship delivered judgment in this case, which was
an appeal from the Vice-Chancellor of England. A motion
was made on behalf of the plaintiff for an injunction to res-
train the defendant from infringing a patent obtained by the
plaintiff, for the manufacture of cement, capable of receiving
a high polish, and being used in the formation of imitation
marbles, and various other building purposes. The plaintiff,
by his first specification, claimed the invention of producing
cement by the use of gypsum, either in its natural state or
in its manufactured state of plaster of Paris, or limestone, or
chalk, first reduced into powder, and then mixed with a so-
lution of any strong alkali, neutralised by means of an acid,
preferring for the purpose the use of pearla-sh and sulphuric acid,
but claiming all such other alkalis and acids as would answer
the purpose ; and that water should be added to the mixture
tili it attained the consistence or state suitable for moulding
in cakes or bricks, or other forms, which were to be after-
wards dried and burnt in manner therein described. The
plaintiff subsequently, in June, 1840, obtained another patent,
and claimed, by his specification, the use of solid alkalis and
acids, or acids in a state of solid combination, with other
substances, or some solid compound containing both an acid
and an alkali, as alum or some mixture of two or
more of the said similar ingredients. The defendant obtained
a patent in February, 1846, for the manufacture of cement
like that invented by the plaintiff, and made precisely in the
same way, but claiming by his specification the combina-
tion of gypsum and borax. In support of the motion it was
contended that the use of borax combined with gypsum, ac-
cording to the specification of the defendant's patent, was an
infringement of the patent obtained by the plaintiff, who
claimed the use, not only of all acids and alkalis, but also
any substance in which the two were combined. It was also
contended that the plaintiff's patent having existed for so
long a period, must be considered good; and that he was,
therefore, entitled to the injunction.
The VItE-CHANCICLLOR said it did not appear there had
been any dispute respecting the plaintiff's patent, which had
been taken out so long ago as the year 1834. It was not to
be set aside, therefore, merely because some objection might
be raised to the validity of the language used in the specifi-
cation. He considered there had been clearly an infringe-
ment of this patent, and the plaintiff was entitled to an in-
junction ; but the plaintiff must be put upon terms to bring
an action to try the question as to the validity of the patent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment upon the
appeal, said he was of opinion that there had been an in-
faingement of the plaintiff's patent, and that as his patent
had remained unopposed ever since the year 1834, the case
was brought within the authorities cited, in which the Court
had upheld patents after they had been undisturbed for so
many years. He should, therefore, confirm the order made by
theVice-Chancellor, granting the injunction, and direct the
plaintiff to bring his action at law as soon as possible.

ROLLS' COURT, Jan. 23.

COLEMAN V. TIIE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.

An injunction had been obtained in this case by the plain-
tiff under these circumstances :—The plaintiff was a pro-
prietor in the Eastern Counties Railway, and the directors of
that company were desirous of constructing a railway from
one of their termini to Harwich, and by that means obtain-
ing a communication with the sea, and thence with several
important sea-ports on the coast of France, Holland, &c. The
plaintiff refused to embark in the undertaking, it being
alleged by the defendants that he was induced to oppose it,
because he was a proprietor in another steam-packet, which
the proposed railway would seriously injure.
An application was made to-day, on the part of the de-
fendants, to alter the form of the injunction, which his Lord-
ship refused to do.

IN RE PENDEN.
There were two petitions in this case, the first for
the confirmation of the Master's report, and the latter to im-
pugn the finding of the Master in reference to some items
in a bill which he had disallowed. The parties were soli-
citor and client, and the accounts had reference to profes-
sional services rendered by the former, the charges for which
the Master considered exorbitant.

Mr. Turner and Mr. James appeared for the appellant
whose case was not concluded till the rising of the Court.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 23,

PHILLIPS V. NAirtw AND OTHERS.

The Court was occupied the most of the morning with this
case, which was an application for a new trial, on the ground
of misdirection from the judge on the trial. The question
was between the owner, and the underwriters of the ship
Broxbourneburg, which received damage in a severe storm
at sea off the coast of India, so as to be compelled to run into
Port Louis, in the Mauritius. The timbers of the vessel, when
she came to be repaired, were found incapable of refasteninge,
and were many of them replaced, which increased the expense
of the repairs to about 8,0001. The defendants, the underwri-
ters, refused to pay more than 50 per cent. of this amount,
averring that the rest arose, not from perils of the sea, but
from the unseaworthmess of the ship.
Sir F. TIMIGER contended against a new trial, and had
not concluded his argument when the Court rose.