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

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 25.
OLDFIELD V. COBBETT.

Mr. Cobbett, the son of the late M.P. for Oldham,
was brought up this morning upon a writ of Habeas, for
the purpose of applying for his discharge from the Fleet,
to which place he had been committed for contempt.
Mr. K. PARKER, who was instructed to oppose the ap-
plication, took a technical objection, and the motion was
ordered to stand over.
The Court will not sit again till Thursday next.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 25.
WILSON. V. TINDALL.

Mr. PEMBERTON(;Ith 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 cloth, at certain temperatures to hydraulic
pressure, whereby a substance was produced called stea-
rine, 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
ivertain 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 agai❑ 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 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 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 crane 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 plaintiffs had brought themselves most
distinctly within the rules of law which protect patents,
and that since the 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 the " Repertorium 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-
tled to an injunction ; but-it was submitt?d 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 ROLLS adjourned the further hear-
ing 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.

PRENDERGAST V. TURTON.

The arguments in this cause were brought to a close
to-day.
His Hortoun in giving judgment said that with re-
spect to the question raised by the defendant's counsel
as to the 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 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
present 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, therefore, 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 the n o min al amount of the 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 Court
during the day. His Honour rose at three o'clock.
During the few days that will elapse,
before the Sittings after Term commence, the
great mass of business to be disposed of in Chancery be-
fore the beginning of Hilary Term, will be so distri-
buted 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.

BAIL COURT, Nov, 25.
BUSINESS 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 cencerued.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AGAINST THE " WORCESTER-
SHIRE CHRONICLE."—THE QUEEN V. ARROWSDIITIL
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;
that he had inserted the article in question on information
on whiclr lie 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