The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-21 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

'WOOD V. TAUNTON.
This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the
defendant from using a patent invention for the manu-
facture of windlasses, &c.
It appeared that the defendant had constructed a
certain description of machinery for the above purpose,
for which a patent had been obtained. Some time back
plaintiff purchased a moiety of the invention, and both
plaintiff and defendant entered into partnership on their
common property. However they had now fallen out,
and they were desirous of dissolving that partnership,
the invention in the meantime not being worked to the
satisfaction of either party.
Mr. Turner and Mr. Prin appeared for the plaintiff,
and Messrs. Kindersley and Daniell for the defendants.
After some discussion,
His LORDSHIP ordered the matter to stand over, with
a view to an arrangement between the parties.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

HER MAJESTY'S MINISTERS.

Immediately after the Judges had taken their seats
this morning, Earl Spencer, Sir Georke Grey, and the
Right Hon. Thomas Babbington Macauley entered the
Court, by the Judges' em,rance, and took the oath of
allegiance to her Majesty, and the oath declaring that
they would not use the influence of their offices to
" injure the rightr and privileges" of the Church of
England, as by law established. They then withdrew.

MARSHALL V. POWELL AND POWELL.
This was an action to recover the amount of a pro-
missory note for 411. Os. Bd., drawn by the defendants,
and delivered to the plaintiff under the following cir-
cumstances:—
The defendants became the tenants of a farm in April
last. A valuation was made, and the amount to be paid
at the incoming was set down at 94/., 531. of which was
paid at once, and a promissory note given for the re-
mainder, on the understanding that there should be a
revision of the- valuation on the subsequent Ist of
August, and that the parties should then give or receive,
according to the value of the crops at that period. The
revision was ,not made until the 2d of August, and was
not completed until the 20th, when the former valuation
was confirmed. A dispute_thus arose between the par-

ties, who proceeded to.trial. The agreement was pro-
duced, and was found to be unstamped ; and coupling
this with the fact that the revision was not made on the
Ist of August, the plaintiff was non-suited. A rule was
subsequently obtained, calling upon the plaintiff to show
cause why the non-suit should not be set aside, and a
new trial had.

The case now came on for argument.
Mr. BAINES (with whom was Mr. Bliss) was heard at
great length in opposition to the rule. He contended
that the agreement ought to have been stamped, in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act, and
cited a number of cases in support of this view. He
was engaged in a case, which was heard in the Ex-
chequer a short time ago, in which he had at
the trial sought to give in evidence an un-
stamped document, signed by the defendant in the
cause, setting forth that be had bought 50 railway
shares, for which he would pay on a- certain day. He
held that the instrument was one which did not require
a stamp, but the Court differed with him, and refused his
application for a new trial. In this case it was evident
that the document, out of which the dispute arose,
was one which required a stamp, in order to make it a
valid document. Besides, its provisions had not been
complied with, and the defendants could not be held to
be bound by such an instrument.
Mr. WATSON followed in support of the rule. He
held that the document did not require a stamp, inas-
much as it was a mere statement in acknowledgment of
an understanding between the parties, and could not be
looked upon in the light of a contract. The real ques-
tion at issue was, whether the revision of the crops was
to be on their condition at the Ist of August, or at the
time it was actually made. He held that the revision
was to be made on the condition of the crops on the Ist,
although the valuation might not have been made until
a short time after, but when it was made it related to the
condition of the crops on the Ist.
The COURT considered that the parties were bound by
the agreement to have a re-valuation made on. the Ist of
August, and to abide by the result; and that the docu-
ment, from its peculiar nature, was admissible at the
trial.
The rule was therefore refused on the first point, but
granted on the second, so that a new trial will take place.