The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-22 00:00:00

LAW TNT PLTATGENCR.

VICE Ciii-h‘C.EILY COURT, lan. 21. '
( Before Vice-Chancellor SHADWELL.)
ARTIFICIAL TEETII—MUGGRIDGE V. THOMAS.
Mr. COOPER applied for an injunction to restrain the de.
fendant, who is a dentist in Duke-street, Grosvenor-square,
from continuing to keep a brass plate on his door, stating
that he was the principal assistant and designer to the
plaintiff, who has carried on the business of a dentist in Old
Burlington-street for several ye trs, and flu. preventing him
from tirculaitng cards and FLO:lielling advertisements in the
newspapers setting forth that h 3 is the sole inventor of a
new mode of fixing artificial teeth, to the great injury of the
plaintiff, who had invented and obtained a patent in March
last for "Pneumatics, or the fixing of teeth on the self-
sustaining principle instead of wires." The plaintiff set forth
that he was the sole inventor of this principle, and that the
defendant had employed a person to deliver the circulars com-
plained of to his patients at his doer, and that in consequence
they had been misled, and his business materially injured.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR granted the application.
THE lIIINGERFORD MARKET COMPANY E. THE CHARING-

CROSS SUSPENSION-BRIDGE.
Owing to the absence of Mr. Bethel, who was engaged in
the Chancellor's Court, thii cause was postponed until the
next motion day..
His llortoutt then rose.

COURT OF QUFEA'S BEACH, Jan. 21.

HOWARD V. DAVIS.

Mr. HUMPHREY moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial
bad on the ground of misdirection. The Learned Counsel
explained the nature of the case, from which it appeared that
the plaintiff's, Messrs. Howard and Bakery were lessees of coach -
makers'prernise, inLong-acre.ln midsummerl 843,theylet them
to Messrs. N'S5 burn and Millar, who afterwards underlet them
to a person of the name of Milne, with an understanding that
the fixtures on the premises, and which were the property of
plaintiffs, should be allowed to remain. Milne some time
afterwards died, and the defendants, as his executors, let
the premises to another party. The action was brought
to recover the value, or the hire of the fixtures, and a verdict
was entered for defendants, there being no evidence, in the.
opinion of the Learned Judge, of the plaintiffs- having been
the landlords.

Mr. IlumFnEv contended that his Lordship's direction
was wro, g, there having been no evidence to show that the
plaintiffs were not the owners, and that it lay on defendants
to show their want of title.

The COURT refused the rule, on the ground that no evi-
dence bad been submitted that a contract had been entered
into between the plaintiff and defendant.

TAMPERING WITH A JURY.-JOHNSON r. ABRAHAM.
Mr. CRowDER, on the part of the defendant, now moved
for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set
aside, on the ground that the witnesses were corrupted, and
the jury tampered with; it being alleged that the son of the
plaintiff gave one sovereign each to three of the jury, and a
sum net specified to another, and also that he treated the
jury.

Mr. Burr (with whom was Mr. Collier) showed !cause
against the rule, and, after reading a number of affidavits
contradictory of the allegations, admitted that 10s. had been
given by the son of the plaintiff to three of the jury, but
contended that it was a youthful indiscretion, and, in the
absence of any other inculpatory evidence, was not sufficient
to warrant a new trial.

Mr. CROWDER having replied,
The COURT was of opinion that the rule should be made
absolute.—Rule made absolute.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 21.

The Court was occupied during the entire morning with
ordinary motions, none of which possessed any feature of
interest.
The Court did not afterwards sit at Nisi Prius.