The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-23 00:00:00

LAW.INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, July 22.
The L6an Caati.cELLon did not sit yesterday, in con-
sequence of having to attend a Council at Windsor, and
nL; Lordship not returning to town till this morning, did
:lot take his seat in his Court iu Lincoln's lan Hall till
after twelve o'clock.
BEARD V. CLAUDET.-THE DAGUERREOTYPE.
- -

Mr. STUART stated that this case came before the
Court upon the motion to discharge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor, pronounced a few • days ago, by which his
Honour granted an injunction restraining the defendant
from using any of the apparatus belonging to the da-
guerreotype, under the license granted him, by a person
named Berry. From the' statements of the Learned
Counsel it appeared that two gentlemen, of the names of
Daguisrre and Neips, having invented the machine for
taking likenesses, which has of late caused such a sensa-
tion in the scientific world, appointed a gentleman of the
names of Miles Berry as their agent in this country.
Mr. Berry granted a license to use the apparatus to
the defendant. For this purpose an agreement was
drawn up between them, which contained- a pro.:
viso, that in case during the continuance of the letters
patent, which had been obtained, any arrangement was
made by the Government of Great Britain, or any other
person to purchase the invention then, as it was alleged
on the part of the defendant, Messrs. Daguerre and Neips,
were to repurchase his interest. On the other hand, on
the part of the plaintiff, it was contended that the effect
of the proviso was, in case the invention was purchased,
to make it compulsory on the defendant Clai,det to sell
his interest. The plaintiff purchased the invention un-
der an agreement, and Mr. Claudet continuing to use the
invention, notwithstanding that purchase, the plaintiff
filed his bill for the specific performance of the agree-
ment for the sale, and also for an injunction to restrain
the defendant from further using the apparatus. On
the case coming on before the Vice-Chancellor, he
granted the injunction, which it was now sought to set
aside.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, after hearing counsel on
both sides, at some length stated that, as he considered
the construction of the agreement to be solely a question
of law, he should order the injunction to be dissolved,
leaving it to the plaintiff to bring such action as he
might be advised, for the purpose of ascertaining whether,
according to the legal construction of the agreement, the
license granted to the defendants became inoperative in
the events that had happened, and in the interim the
rest of the motion must stand over.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, July 22.
MARLING V. KIRBY.
The greater part of the day was occupied by the fur-
ther arguments in this part-heard case, the object of
which was to obtain an injunction to restrain the defend-
ant from infringing a patent obtained by the plaintiff for
making pins with solid heads.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the ar-
guments, directed an issue to try the validity of the
patent.

SHERIFFS COURT, July 22.
DREW V. FORTY.

This was an action to recover the sum of 151. 13s. 6d.
for work done and performed.
Mr. Wylde (nephew to the Attorney:General) ap-
peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Payne for the defendant.
The defendant in this action keeps the Royal Hotel
in Richmond, and the plaintiff is a plasterer, living in
the same town. The present action was brought for re-
pairs done to the house of the defendant by the plaintiff.
The defendant pleaded on the record several items of
set off, amounting to 141. 6d., for several quantities of
wine supplied to the plaintiff, and a tender of 6/., and
the cost of repairs done to a chandelier, which had been
broken by one of the plaintiff's men during the repairs
done to defendant's house, the amount of which was 13/.

Several witnesses were' called on the part of the de-
fendant to' prove the various items of set off; but they
failed to prove the tender made, and Mr. Wylde and Mr.
Payne having severally addressed the Jury on the part
of their clients, the Jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff to the amount of 71. 135., the amount & the
tender being paid into Court.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July?,
(Before Mr. Commissioner BOWEN.)
BAIL CASES.

Upon the list were ten town and three country bail
cases for hearing, several of which were rejected for
want of justification. None of them was marked ki
any feature of public interest.