The Sun.
London, England, 1848-11-10 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING-, NOVEMBER lO, 1848,

FRANCE.

Abd-el-Kader left Bordeaux on Sunday morning in
the Caiman for Nantes, whence he is to proceed to
the Château of Amboise. He was conducted to the
steamer by the Archbishop of Bordeaux; and on the
quay a guard of honour was drawn up to salute him
as he embarked. _ . _

The Minister of Agriculture is taking measures for
the immediate organization of the National Agrono-
mical Institute at Versailles. Three farms belonging
to the Park, viz., those of the Menagerie, Satory, and
Gally-Cherreloup, have been marked out, each to be
applied to a different branch of agriculture. In that
of the Menagerie experiments will be made in the
improvement of the different breeds of horses ; in
that of Gally-Cherreloup the breeds of horned cattle,
and at that of Satory in the breed of sheep and other
wool-bearing animals. The extensive woods of Ver-
sailles will afford means of instruction in wood-craft,
and other branches of agricultural economy, and hor-
ticulture will not be neglected. In the above farms,
in addition, agricultural experiments properly so
called, will be conducted on an extensive scale.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 9

THE SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. COWARD.

This was a motion to discharge an order of the Vice-
Chancellor restraining the defendant, a starch manu-
facturer, in Lambeth, from summoning a jury under the
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, to assess the compen-
sation to which he is entitled for his interest in the
works taken by the company to complete their railway
to Waterloo-bridge. The defendant's tenancy expired
pending the negotiations with the company, and in that
interval the company purchased the fee-simple from the
landlord. He remained as a yearly tenant, and paid one-
half-year's rent before the company took possession.
The Vice-Chancellor thought the interest of the defend-
ant was not one that could be determined by a jury until
it had been considered by a court of equity.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. Faber, and Mr. R. P. Collier were
heard in support of the appeal.
His LORDSHIP without calling on Mr. Bethel and Mr.
Beales for the other side, said it was a very clear case.
The interest of the defendant was one that had not
been determined, and where was the propriety of sum-
moning a jury to consider it ? The matter was one ex-
clusively for a court of equity, and the appeal must be
dismissed with costs.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, Nov. 9.
(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE.)
MOSSMAN V. MEEK.—COPYRIGHT IN VALENTINES.
This was a motion for an injunction restraining the
defendant Meek, an embosser and manufacturer of lace-
paper, in Crane-court, Fleet-street, from selling any
papers or articles which wore imitations of the plaintiff's
designs for valentines or valentine piper. The plain-
tiff also asked that the defendant might be ordered to
deliver up, for destruction, all papers and articles manu-
factured or ornamented by him, to which the plaintiff's
design, or any alleged fraudulent imitation of it, had
been applied, as also all drawings, dies, designs, tools,
plates, punches, and instrument 3, used for applying such
design. The plaintiff was a designer and lace. paper
maker, residing at Islington, and claimed to be the pro-
prietor of an elegant design for embossing, perforating,
and ornamenting note-paper, and of valentines. The
merit claimed by the plaintiff was in combining various
methods by which a portion of the paper surface (under-
neath which was concealed an ornamental coloured em-
blematical drawing) was drawn up in a spiral form, so
as to exhibit through the interstices the coloured em-
-1 blem. This was known in the trade by the technical
I term " pull up."
Mr. HADDAN, in support of the motion, stated that
the plaintiff had obtained the usual certificate of regis-
tration under the Designs Copyright Act, 5 and 6 Vict.,
c. 100, and 6 and 7 Vict., c. 65, which certificate was
dated Nov. 0, 1847, which expired to-day. The plaintiff
had discovered the alleged infringement in July last.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR (after examining several of
the plaintiff's specimens)—Mr. Haddan, what can be the
use of such articles as these?
Mr. HADDIN said that the object was to have a pic-
ture introduced, but concealed, which would be shown
on pulling the string.
Some of the " valentines " manufactured by the de-
fendant were handed up to his Honour, who, after look-
ing at them, said, " Well, Mr. Winstanley, I think
yours is better than theirs, for there is a great heart in
the middle of it."
Mr. WINSTANLEY (for the defendant) said neither the
design nor the " pull up " was original. As to the
lacing and embossing, it was positively sworn that they
were those of defendant's own invention. The privilege
was at an end this day, therefore the injunction would
be useless. The plaintiff had applied to a magistrate for
his interference, under the Act, but he had retused.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR, returning the different spe-
cimens to both parties—" I think so elegant an inven-
tion ought to have a better name than you have given
to it. I think it is a very elegant manufacture, but I
am not aware of its usefulness; but there are a great
many good things in the world for which there is no
use."

The counsel stated that the public seemed to think
that they were useful, for an eminent house in the
Strand had orders for valentines last year to the amount
of 2501.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I dare say it is a profitable
adventure, but I think you had better not take an in-
junction; take leave to bring an action.
The plaintiff's counsel accepted the offer of the Court,
and the motion was ordered to stand over until after the
trial of the action. The evidence on both sides, as to the
originality of the invention, was very conflicting.
(Before Sir J. WIQRAM.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. LAWII.—THE IRVING CHAPEL IN
NEWMAN-STREET.
This case, which was before the court upon informa-
tion on the 18th of July, when certain inquiries were
directed to be taken before the Master, was now men-
tioned, in consequence of a difference between the parties
interested as to the precise terms in which the order of
reference should be framed. It may be remembered
that a testatrix, a Miss Burry, had directed her execu-
tors " to pay to the Messrs. Drummonds, the bankers at
(;haring-cross, the clear yearly sum of 1001., for the sole
use and benefit of any of the ministers and members of
the churches now forming upon the apostolical doctrines
brought forward originally by the late Edward Irving,
who may be prosecuted, aggrieved, or in poverty for
preaching or upholding such doctrines, or that the same
may be appropriated for the benefit of the church
founded by the late Edward Irving, in Newman-street."
The decree was taken, without argument, for transferring
a sufficient sum of money into court, and directions
were given that it should be laid out in the usual manner.
The reference to the Master directed him to inquire,
and state to the court, what were the doctrines re-
ferred to in the will of the testatrix as " the apostolical
doctrines brought forward originally by Edward Irving,"
.nd whether there was any person, or " any class" of
persons answering the description contained in the will
of the testatrix. It had been proposed to strike out the
words " any class" of persons, and substitute the words
" and if the said Master should find there are any such
persons, let him inquire and state whether such persons
form a class." This form of reference had been objected
to by some of the parties, upon the ground that it would
make it incumbent upon the Master to ascertain the
names of such persons.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. K. Parker, Mr. R. Palmer,
and Mr. Bovill, appeared for the parties.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—The testatrix has given it
to a class of persons. The word " class" does not sup-
pose a communion between them. To ask whether the
persons form a class is out of the question; it is giving
the word a signification which it does not mean. It does
riot mean that they are united by any particular bond.
If there are two persons holding such doctrines living in
one parish, and three in another, they form what is com-
monly called a " class." Here it means a number of
persons. It merely gives plurality. But to ask whether
they form a class is quite another thing. lt is quite
correct to say " persons, or class of persons.
The order of reference was accordingly taken in this
last mentioned form.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 9.
WATSON V. THE EARL or CUARLEMONT.
- This was an action to recover back money paid as a
deposit on the purchase of certain shares in the Newry,
Armagh, and Enniskillen Railway Company. The ac-
tion was in the form of money had and received, and
came on for trial before Lord Denman at the sittings
after Michaelmas Term, 1847, when it appeared that in
the beginning of September, 1845, a prospectus had
been issued, to which the name of the secretary of the
company was attached, and in which it was stated that
the shares had been allotted, and that the applications
for them, particularly from persons locally interested,
had been so numerous, that the provisional committee
had been compelled to refuse many such applications,
although they came from persons of undoubted respect-
ability. The plaintiff had a certain number of shares
allotted to him, and after the appearance of this pro-
spectus paid the regular deposit upon them. The
eallot-
ment paper contained the name of the defendant as one
of the provisional directors. The company was finally
dis-
solved, and this action was then brought. Evidence of
these facts was given, and it appeared ,that only 13,000
out of 16,000 shares had been allotted, and that some of
the allottees were mere speculators. The plaintiff had
contended that he was entitled to recover, as he had paid
his money upon false representation, to which the de-
fendant
eeradtdoi
co
tps opted
todra
st
ihtdihes
evthiew of the case, and the jury
was, as a provisional director, a party. The Lord
rbCeehteul
been
fnje du
obtaineds ati
pislavienrtdiff.iet
oAn
trhueleghroadunsdisncoef
the improper admission of the prospectus of September
in evidence, and of misdirection.

Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Butt, and Mr. Hoggins appeared
to show cause against the rule. They insisted that, as
the defendant had been a member of the provisional
committee, he was responsible for all the papers issued
in the name of that committee and by its authority,
whether h• had been or not actually cognizant of their
contents. The evidence of the prospectuses had, there-
fore, been rightly admitted, and the jurors were pro-
perly directed to form their opinion on these documents
in connexion with the other circumstances proved in
the case. _ _ _

Mr. MARTIN and Mr. BRA3IWELL, in support of the
rule, contended that the prospectuses were not shown to
have been the cause of the plaintiff parting with
money, since no proof had been given that he had
ever seen them, and there certainly was none to show
that the defendant had even the slightest acquaintance
with their contents. The defendant, therefore, had not,
in fact, been guilty of any misrepresentation, and yet
this action proceeded solely on the assumption that he
had. If, instead of the vague and unmeaning form of
money had and received, the law required a true state-
ment of the real circumstances of the case, the plaintiff
could only have sued the defendant on an allegation that
he had committed not merely a legal but a moral fraud,
in making these representations. Supposing such a
charge made, and the parties going to trial upon it,
there could be no doubt that the verdict must be for the
defendant, for there was not the slightest proof that he
had taken the slightest part in anything which was even
put forward by the plaintiff as a ground of alleged mis.
representation. If the defendant could not, as he could
not, be held liable on the direct trial of such an issue,
he ought not to be held liable under a vague form of
pleading, which could only be supported on the nicest
legal subtleties.
The COURT took time to consider the question.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 9.
(Sittings in Banco.)
HAMILTON V. COCHRAN.
This was an action for the alleged infringement by
the defendant of the plaintiff's patent in a certain im-
proved machine for sawing wood in a curvilineal line,
with what was termed a varying bevel, principally in use
for ship-building. The trial of the cause at the last
assizes at Guildford lasted three or four days; and
to-day
Mr. M. CHAMBERS moved for a rule tr. set zsick
the verdict substantially entered for the plaintiff, and for
a new trial. Three grounds were raised in support of
the nwtiva; first, that the plaintiff's invention was not

new; secondly, that it wai of no public utility; and,
thirdly, that the defendant's machine was different from
that of the plaintiff, and no infringement.
The motion occupied the whole of the day, and the
arguments in support of it had not concluded when the
Court rose, about five o'clock.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Nov. 9.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BUItCaELL.)
SINGULAR INQUIRY, AND REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE.—

THE QUEEN ON BEHALF OF SOLOMON V. NORMAN.

This was an inquiry under a Crown writ, to ascertain
what property the defendant was possessed of. On the
last occasion the witnesses were not present.

Mr. VPayne, a solicitor, was now called on to produce
the probate of the will under which it was alleged de-
fendant was entitled to property. Mr. Payne refused
to give evidence until his expenses were paid ; but the
question being reserved, he said, he had not got the pro-
bate, having handed it over to the executor, Mr. Stun•.
Mr. Stone was called, and admitted that he had the
document, but did not considsr himself bound to
produce it.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said it was an inquiry on be-
half of the Queen, and every one was bound to aid
and assist. The fee of one shilling he considered was
strictly the legal fee, and on that the deed must be pro-
daced.
The probate was then put in, by which it appeared
that the defendant was entitled to 3701. a year, and a
verdict was given accordingly.
Mr. Payne again applied for his expenses, which
were objected to on the ground that on the first day
he would not produce the deed to be read, and on the
second, was called on his subpwna, and was liable to an
attachment for not attending.
The UNDER-SHERIFF, however, thought as the wit-
ness had not had notice to attend on the last occasion,
he was entitled to costs.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
NOVEL AND CURIOUS AFFILIATION CASE.—Colonel
Blanc was summoned before Mr. Bingham to show
cause against an order being made on him for the sup-
port of an illegitimate child, of which he was sworn to
be the putative father, by Sophie Mertz, a young French•
woman.
The case has undergone a very lengthy and minute
investigation, having been adjourned three or•four times
to produce additional evidence, in consequence of the
defence set up that Colonel Blanc was not the father of
the child, and that great doubt existed of the plaintiff
being the mother of the child produced in court. It was
found necessary to send for witnesses from France, of
course at very considerable expense.
Mr. Wontner was retained professionally by Sophie
Mertz, and Mr. Ballantine for Colonel Blanc.
From the very great length to which the examina-
tions extended each day, it is impossible to give more
than a brief outline of the leading matter.
The plaintiff, Sophie Mertz, stated that she had for-
merly lived in London, as milliner's assistant; that she
became acquainted with Colonel Blanc, and that an in-
timacy commenced between them and continued for four
years. She had met Colonel Blanc) frequently by ap-
pointment, and had remained with him at his lodgings
and other places all night. [Numerous letters from
Colonel Blanc making appointments with the plaintiff
were put in, which put the nature of the intimacy be-
tween the parties beyond all doubt.] In consequence of
this intimacy she became enceinte, and trio months
before her accouchement she mentioned her situation to
Colonel Blane. She went to France to be confined, and
there gave birth to a child, which Colonel Blanc refused
to acknowledge or support; she had, therefore, been
obliged to come from France to obtain by legal means
some support for the child.
Mr. Ballantine called evidence to prove that the plain-
tiff's correspondence with Colonel Blane had ceased for
so long a period that it was impossible for Culonel Blanc
to be the father of the child.
Other evidence was called to establish a doubt about
the plaintiff having had a child.
The French nurse was sent for from France, who
proved that she had seen the plaintiff just before her ac-
couchement; that she had evident appearances of being
enceinte, and that half an hour after the birth of the
child she had received it, and bad attended the plaintiff
as nurse until her recovery.
Mr. Ballantine, on behalf of the defendant, contended
that the whole case was a conspiracy against Colonel
Blane, to oblige him to support another mans offepring.
But his first objection was, that a foreigner, as the plain-
tiff was, who had given birth to a child in a foreign
country, could not by law proceed against a British sub-
ject in such a case, in the same form as a British subject
could proceed. His next point was, the improbability
of the plaintiff concealing the circumstances of her
alleged pregnancy from Colonel Blanc ; and the in-
credible circumstance of her going to France to give
birth to the child. He further contended that some of
the letters and documents produced as corroborative of
portions of the evidence were manifest forgeries.
Mr. Woatner, in reply, said that, civilly and crimi-
nally, a foreigner had the same rights in English courts
of law as Englishmen. This was the peculiar feature of
the country. As an instance, he might mention Napo-
leon Bonaparte, who had instituted proceedings for re
dress in one of our courts. With respect to the evidence,
he contended that the intercourse, which was not denied,
was established by evidence up to a period which war-
ranted the presumption that Colonel Blanc was the father
of the child ; and that with respect to the birth of the
child, that had been proved beyond doubt by the testi•
mony of the nurse.
Mr. BINGHAM said in this case Sophie Mertz, a
Frenchwoman, residing in London, seeks to affiliate on
the defendant a child born in France, after an intercourse
alleged to have taken place in England. It is objected to
the jurisdiction of this Court, that the statute 7 and 8
Vice, cap. 101, does not apply to such a case. That Act,
however, without reference to nation or place of birth,
gives the mother of a bastard child the right to apply to
a magistrate of the district wherein she resides for an
order of affiliation on the putative fattier, who, if the
case be established against him, is compellable to pay
her a sum not exceeding half a- crown a week toward.
the support of such child. And it seems to me that this
payment must be considered either as a statutory debt
in the way of compensation to the mother, or as au in-
demnity to the parish where she resides, which, in case
of her falling into destitution, is clearly bound to assist
her as one of the casual poor. If it be a debt a fo-
reigner may sue for it in our country, as well as a Bri-
tish subject. If it be an indemnity to the parish, it
is necessary that the parish should be indemnified
against a foreign as against an English child. I think.
therefore, that the statute applies to a case like the pre-
sent, and that the objection to the jurisdiction is not well
founded. On the merits, the case has undergone, as I
think it demanded, a careful and even a rigid, investiga-
tion. Some doubt was thrown on the birth and identity
of the child, and it was reasonably required that both
those facts should be established by the corroborative
proof which the statute exacts. But the witness, Antonie
Duez, who is properly admitted by the defendant's advo-
cate to be the witness of truth, has now stated that the
child produced was delivered to her half-an-hour after its
' birth—that for seine days before that time the complain-
ant had all the appearance of a woman far advanced in
pregnancy, and all the appearance of a woman just de-
livered when the witness received the child. And what
the witness Frederick Muller deposes to, as having passed
at the interview which he and the complainant had with
the defendant on the subject of this child, is to my mind
significant, if not conclusive, proof of the defendant's
loag intercourse with the complainant. Under
these circumstances, the resistance to an order appears
to rest mainly on certain surmises and suppositions,
grounded on the complainant's j eirney to France—on
the levity of his introduction to the defendant four years
ago—her demeanour as a witness—the style and chas
ratter of a letter a leged to have been written in France
on the subject of the witness Duez's journey; inscrip-
tions on passports, and on some discrepancy in state-
ments. Considering the complainant's station in life, the
journey to France is sufficiently accounted for, by the
greater cheapness of providing for the child in that
country; and it might not be difficult to find a solution
as simple for many other circumstances apparently
suspicious. But I refrain from entering oe
such topics, because it is contrary to the spirit of
English law to decide any case upon surmises or
suspicions, however plausible, in opposition to
expressed testimony, and in the absence of testimony
to support such surmises. It has been proved in this
case that the defendant cohabited with the complainant
for some years, and that she has been delivered of a
child which is produced in court. No proof has been
given, sach as is frequently given in bastardy cases, that
the complainant has cohabited with any other man or
men ; nor, although ample time has been afforded for
the purpose, has any witness been brought from France
to contradict any part of the detailed statement made by
the complainant a month ago of her proceedings in
France. In such a state of the evidence the burden of
providing for this child, according to the statute, falls
under our law clearly and unexceptionably on the de-
' fendant. An order will be made, therefore, for the
usual weekly allowance, and for the statutory expenses
of the delivery, and for the expenses of the witness An-
tonie Duez.
Mr. Ballantine gave notice of his intention to
appeal.
The order for payment towards the support of the
child is only 2s. 6d. per week. The expense for the de-
fence is supposed already to be likely to amount to 15
or 20 years payments at this rate.
LAMBETH.
PASSING FORGED NOTES.—CAUTION TO THE PUBLIC.
—Three men, named John Harley, Thomas Dale, and
William Davis, who had been in custody for some days
on a charge of being concerned in passing a forged Si.
note, were again placed at the bar for final examination.
An officer belonging to the Bank of England attended,
and, in reply to a question from the Magistrate, said the
evidence against the prisoners was not sufficient to sus-
tain a prosecution, and, therefore, it was not his intention
to press the matter further.
The prisoners were in consequence discharged.
It appears that a number of these forged notes, on the
' Newcastle branch of the Bank of England, have been
passed in the metropolis, and they are so well executed
that it requires an excellent judge to detect them.
CAUTION TO BROKERS.—Mr. Edward Smith, a li-
censed broker, carrying on business in George-street,
Camberwell, appeared before the Magistrate to answer
to a summons for excessive charges.
In this case it appeared that the defendant had been
engaged by Miss Mary Ann Brown to distrain on the
goods of a tenant, and while the goods seized were con-
demned at 165., his charges for the job were 1/. Os. 6d.,
being an excess of 1 ls. beyond that which the Act of
Parliament allows,
The defendant was convicted in a penalty of three
times the amount of his excessive charge—namely, 355,,
ant. 2s. costs, both of which he paid.
BENEVOLENCE .—Mr. ,Norton received a note from
D. W., enclosing five pounds for the poor-box, which
was requested W bo twliunledged ila the papers.