The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-11 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

S. Beesley and J. Clark, horse -dealers, Oxford—H. Stevens
and J. Davis, braziers, Birmingham—W. H. Kitchen, E.
Kitchen, and I. W. Moore, ironmongers, High-street, St.
Giles—R. Crafter and J. R. Slimmers, chemists, High-street,
Hoxton Old-town—J. Ellis and W. Allinson, bootmakers,
Whitchurch, Shropshire—G. Hinde, W. Hinde, and E. Hinde,
linendrapers, Cheapside, Lancashire —H. Wright and J.
Thompson, woolstaplers, Halifax—E. M. Richardson and M.
C. Hardie, baby-linen makers, Chorlton-upon-Medlock—H.
Spence and W. Markland, coppersmiths, Manchester—D.
Batley and E. Taylor, tobacco manufacturers, Ipswich—J.
Mooney and G. Hickes, sharebrokers, Huddersfield—E. Kent,
W. Woulds, and W. Habgood, small ware manufacturers,
Manchester—J. and N. Astley, nankeen manufacturers,
Manchester—J. Savage and S. 0. Foden, architects, Essex-
street, Strand—D. Buchanan, D. C. Buchanan, and T. Sill,
Liverpool (so far as regards T. Sill)—J. and A. Mackeand,
drapers, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—M. A. Salter and M. Tom-
linson, schoolmistresses, Hillingdon-end, Uxbridge—H. Wes-
ton and C. A. Young, Wellington-street, Southwark—J. H.
Galloway and E. C. Bell, attorneys, Hull—J. Bolton and T.
Coupe, spindle makers, Preston—J. M'Clure and J. Haslarn,
m Tchants, Manchester—W. Cardwell, E. Cardwell, and T.
Tootal, sharebrokers, Manchester (so far as regards T.
Tootal )—C. Mellor and J. Ryder, merchants, Liverpool—A.
Muirhead and A. Hunter, drapers, Chatham—J. G. Clark
and W. Beatson. glass manufacturers, Masbrough, Yorkshire
—W. Holt, J. Holt, and J. Holt, woolstaplers, Rochdale (so
far as regards J. Holt)—J. Carrand and E Thomel, London
—I. Fairclough and E. Davies, counterpane manufacturers,
Tong-with-Haulgh, Lancashire—J. Walmsley, jun., and J.
Moorhouse, coal merchants, Liverpool—J. Hancocks and S.
Jackson, pork butchers, Birmingham—H. Plowright and D.
W. Martin. linendrapers, King's Lynn, Norfolk—J. Richards,
jun., and T. Rogers, jun., attorneys, Reading.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS

Peter Primrose, flour merchant, Glasgow, Feb. 13 and
March 5, at one, at the chambers of Mr. Monteith, Glasgow.
Hastings and Paterson, corn merchants, Glasgow, Feb. 16
and March 9, at one, at the chambers of Mr. Howie, Glasgow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice COLTMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury, at Westminster.)
GAMBLE V. KURTZ.
This case (which occupied Saturday and Monday, and
the greater part of this day's sitting), was resumed at the
meeting of the Court this day, when several further wit-
nesses were heard in support of the defendant's case, to
prove that his machinery was not an infringement upon the
plaintiff's patent, &c. Drs. Lyon Playfair and Pratt, of
Liverpool, were among those witnesses. The case for the
defence having concluded, and counsel having replied on be-
half of the plaintiff, the Learned Judge summed up, and
the jury retired at about three o'clock to consider their ver-
dict. After having been in consultation for nearly five
hours, they returned into Court with a special verdict, in the
following terms :—" Assuming that the models were correct,
we find that the patent had been infringed. Secondly, that
the invention of the two separate chambers, or furnaces, is
not new, but that the plaintiff's mode of connecting the same
is new. Thirdly, that the specification is sufficient; and,
fourthly, that the process patented is an improvement upon
the old system of preparing sulphate of soda."
This verdict was not delivered till nearly eight o'clock at
night.

•
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 10.
(Post Terminal Sittings at Nisi Prins, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE GOLDSMITHS' COMPANY OF

CHESTER.
This was an information, filed by the Attorney-General
against the defendants, tbr the recovery of penalties alleged
to have been incurred by them in consequence of stamping
certain gold watch cases with the standard assay mark when
the quality of the gold was of less value than eighteen carats,
the fineness which the statute requires for such articles
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the facts of the case, in
corroboration of which he called the following witnesses :
Mr. T. Kaye deposed that he was in the employment of
Roskil and Son, Liverpool, at the time when the occurrence
took place. First received the watch case numbered 49,941
from Mr. Jones on the 18th January, 1645. It was then in
the rough state to have the movements fitted. When it
was returned to Mr. Jones, on the 19th January, it had the
number upon it. That watch case was amongst the number
of watch cases then before him, as was also the others men-
tioned in the information.
Mr. Christopher Jones, a watch case maker, John Munro,
a shopman, and John Taylor, a carrier, were examined for
the purpose of proving that the watches in question were
those which were sent to the company to be assayed.
Mr. Harding, a drawer in the assay-otfice in London, de-
posed to the mode of proceeding adopted with regard to
assays. They sometimes assayed the cases by themselves
and sometimes the wires, or in any other way they thought
it most likely to detect any error.
Mr. Jeremiah Fuller examined—Was the assayer for
fifteen years of the Goldsmiths' Company of London. He
used his own weights in assaying. Received drawings of the