The Sun.
London, England, 1824-05-20 00:00:00

BRUNTON V. ROBINE.

Mr. RICHARDS moved for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from selling hats or bonnets constructed in the way
invented by the plaintiff, for which he had obtained his Ma-
jesty's letters-patent in the year 1817. The plaintiff's affida-
vit stated that his invention consisted of the introduction of
silk, in a peculiar manner, into the plait which composed the
bonnet; that the defendant had been for some time past in the
habit of selling bonnets constructed in this way, and still con.
tinned to do so; and that the deponent lately went to the de-
fendant's shop in St. James's-street, where he saw Mrs. Ro-
bine, of whom he asked to buy one of these bonnets; but she
refused to sell it to him, saying that as she had been threatened
with an action for the infringement of Mr. Brunton's patent,
she must decline selling them to any one who was not intro-
duced to her by a friend, in order that she might be assured her
so doing would not lead to an action. However, while de-
ponent was in the shop, a lady came in who was known to
Mrs. Robine ; and the latter immediately sold her one of the
bonnets in question.
The LORD CHANCE LLOR.—I think this is a case for an in.
junction ; but you must serve the defendant with a subpoena.
I do not see, if we grant injunctions for blacking to cover the
feet, why we should not also grant injunctions for bonnets to
cover the head.

COTENT•GARDEN THEATRE.

CONST V. HARRIS.

Mr. HEALD reminded his Lordship that he said he would
not Lear any motion in this case until the receiver should be
appointed by the Master. The receiver was now appointed ;
Mr. Heald, therefore, had a motion to make, that the receipts
of the Theatre should be applied to the current expences of the
establishment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the expenditure of the
Theatre should be supplied.
The adverse Solicitor said, that Counsel were instructed to
oppose Mr. Heald's motion; they were not present just now,
but were expected to come into Court every moment.
Mr. HEALD did not care for that; if his motion was not op-
posed, he would take his Lordship's, order for the application of
the receipts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR trusted the Gentlemen would not
quarrel about the receipts of this night ; all parties might argue
the matter to-morrow morning.
Mr. SUGDEN having came in now, expressed his hope that
his Lordship would hear his motion rt lative to the application
of the receipts to-morrow, as well as Mr. Heald's motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he understood the bu-
siness of the Theatre to have been carried on up to last night as
usual. .

Mr. HEALD assented to this.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—ThenIet matters go on to-
night as heretofore, and let all the motions come on next Friday.

IN THE HATTER OF FROSTS.
Mr. AGAR having concluded his reply in this case, which
was an application to strike the names of the Messrs. Frost off
the Rolls, for having (as alleged) sued out a concerted commis-
sion of bankruptcy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after speaking of the high cha-
racter which the elder Mr. Frost bore on the Northern Circuit,
proceeded to make some remarks upon the case, in the course
of which he severely reprehended the conduct of any solicitor
who would act in the double capacity of commissioner and
solicitor in the same case. His Lordship observed, it was quite 1
clear that the object of the commission in question was any
thing but to benefit the creditors. With respect to the bffl of
costs, there certainly were items of it which ought not to have
been charged, and which the Masters of this Court woutl never
allow ; but he apprehended that if he were Se strike every
country solicitor's name off the Rolls, merely forintroducing
overcharges into his bill, he should thin the land of these gen-
tlemen, particularly in the North. However,. as there was an
appeal from the Vice-Chancellor respecting a decision upon the
first commission, he should like, before he pronounced his
opinion in the present case, to hear Counsel upon that appeal.
The argument of the appeal was acccordingly proceeded with,
amen occupied the Court for the remainder of the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAY 19.
Sitting: in Banco.
EMERY V. BROWNE, WIDOW.

Mr. Sergeant PEEL moved for a rule to skew cause why the
defendant in this case should not be discharged out of the cus-
tody of the Sheriff of Worcester, on entering a common ap-
pearance. The affidavit on which this application was made
stated the following facts :—The defendant is a widow woman,
residing at Rock, in the county of Worcester, where she pos-
sesses a house and garden. On one occasion she sold some of
the produce of her garden for 41. It:N. Not receiving the money
in the date she had reason to expect, she applied to the plain-
tiff; who is an attorney practisTg at Kidderminster, and re-
quested him to write " a lawyers letter" to the party indebt-
ed to her, but not to proceed any farther, as she had not
money to go on with a law-suit. The plaintiff, however, in-
stead of the gentle stimulant of " a lawyer's letter," applied a
more powerful medicine to rouse up the tartly disposition of his
client's debtor. He brought his action at law, which went on
to trial, and a verdict was given forthe debt and costs. Like
many others, however, who go to expensive law-snits for small
sums, the widow got only a verdict. It did not appear that the
verdict was productive of its object, for it turned out in a short
time afterwards that the plaintiff made application to the defen-
dant for his costs, amounting to no less than Kg . ; and when the
widow and her son came to his office respecting it, the attorney
wanted her to give him a mortgage on her small property to se-
cure its payment. Upon her refusing this, the plaintiffarrested
her on an affidavit of a debt exceeding 601. The poor widow,
not being able to procure bail for such an amount, went to prison,
where she continued until after the trial of the case at the next
Worcester Assizes. On that occasion the plaintiff was non-
suited ; and now the widow rejoiced, for she anticipated that her
imprisonment would be at end, and that she should be restored
again to her friends. In this, however, she had calculated with-
out a competent knowledge (though with some experience) of
" the law's delay." The plaintiff was defeated in his action,
but not conquered in legal tact. He laid a detainer on the wi-
dow for the debt, with the avowed purpose of moving, in the
course of the next term, that the nonsuit should be set aside ;
and at the same time again sent in his former bill of costs. The
next term came, and no such motion was made, and the widow
remained up to the present moment in the gaol of Worcester.
It was under these circumstances that she sought relief by the
present moment.
The Coo RT expressed considerable indignation at the con-
duct of the plaintiff; and granted the rule to show cause, and at
die same time ordered it to be stated, in addition to the affi-
davit, whether the plaintiff' was an attorney of that Court;
that if he were, the Court might make such further orders re-
specting him as the justice of the case might require, unless a
full and satisfactory answer were given to all the allegations of
the defendant's affidavit.