The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-10 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 8.

CROSSLEY V. THE DERBY GAS COMPANY AND ANOTHER.
This was an appeal from an order of the Vice-Chancellor
continuing an injunction against the defendants to restrain
them from using a gas meter of which the patent was in the
plaintiff, and also directing an account of the profits made
by the use of the invention for six years previous to the filing
of the bill.
Sir W. Horne, in support of the appeal, said that the
patent was obtained in 1815, but that the defendants had
not used the meters before 1821, when their agent, Mr.
Wigton, one of the defendants, obtained a license for the
use of,the meter for one year. After that period they pur-
chased two meters from the plaintiff, and then, conceiving
that they were fully justified in doing so, they commenced
the manufacture of meters to their own account, and sup-
plied them to those persons who used their gas in the town
of Derby. For six years the plaintiff took no notice of the
alleged infringement of his patent until 1828, when, having
succeeded in an action brought against a person, named
Beverley, for using his meters without a license, he filed a
bill and obtained an injunction against the defendants a few
days before the expiration of his patent. The injunction
thus obtained was ex-parte, and it restrained the defendants
from continuing to use the meter, as well as from disposing
of any of those which they had manufactured for sale. The
Learned Counsel now contended that the plaintiff's bill
could not be sustained, because the specification of his pa-
tent was defective.
Sir E. SUGDEN contended, on the part of the plaintiff,
that the form of the appeal precluded the defendants from
going into the question of delay. They did not object to
the injunction, and, by not doing so, they in a manner ac-
knowledged his right to it, and, as a matter of course, to an
account during the time the patent had been infringed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR should hear Sir W. Horne in
reply on Monday morning ; but merely on the same point
of time.—His Lordship rose at three o'clock.
IN RE CHAMBERS.
It was this morning arranged by the Counsel in this case,
that the application for superseding the bankruptcy of Mr.
Chambers, the late proprietor of the King's Theatre, should
be made on an early day next week.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Nov. 8.

TUELLUSON V. WOODFORD.
In consequence of the late Act of Parliament, by which
the estates of Mr. Thelluson were ordered to be leased to
Lord Rendlesham at. 11,5001. a year, the present petition
was presented by the late receiver to pass his accounts and
vacate his recognizances. The trustees objected to his dis-
charge, on the ground that the lease to Lord Rendlesham
was not actually executed. But his Honour observed he
did not see why the trustees were so anxious to intermeddle
with the estates.

COURT OF KING'S-BENCH, Nov. 8.

THE KING V. EIGGS.
Mr. PLATT moved for a habeas corpus to be directed to
the keeper of Maidstone gaol to bring up the body of Lewis
Biggs, whom he described to be a boy of fourteen years of
age, now confined in Maidstone gaol upon a charge of ma-
liciously shooting at two persons named Owen and Timmer.
The defendant was the son of a landowner in the neigh-
bourhood of Sundridge, and was permitted by his father to
use a pistol in shooting sparrows. On the 25th of October
last he was returning in a van with his brother and a ser-
vant to his father's house at Hyde-hill, after having been
amusing himself in shooting sparrows all day, when Owen
and this other man passed them. When these persons had
passed about thirty yards, the boy, for the purpose of
frightening them, fired off his pistol. He had sworn an
affidavit declaring, in the most positive manner, that he
only fired off the pistol to frighten these men ; that he did
not take aim at them, and did not intend to harm them,
and that all he thought of was alarming them. He was a
day or two afterwards taken before a Magistrate, and was
committed upon the charge of maliciously shooting, to the
custody of the gaoler of Maidstone. There was an affidavit
of the brother confirming, us far as it was possible for him
to confirm, the statement of the defendant, and besides
these affidavits he had that of the father, who swore that
his child waf+ of a human? disposition, and perfectly in-
capable of seriously intending to injure the men,
Lord DENMAN—Take a mile,

RIDGWAY V. THE HUNGEEPORD MARKET COMPANY.
Mr. FOLLETT moved for a rule to show cause why the
damages in this case should not be increased to 1501. This
was an action for salary brought by the plaintiff, who had
been a clerk in the service of the defendants, and who
claimed three-quarters of an annual salary, fixed at 2001. a
year. The case was tried at the sittings after last Term,
before Lord Denman, when a verdict was given for the
plaintiff for the sum of 121. Sir James Scarlett had moved
a few days since for a rule to set aside the verdict for the
plaintiff and enter a verdict for the defendant, and in sup.
port of his application had stated that the plaintiff was
discharged from the service for a series of acts of miscon-
duct. There was no evidence of any such thing at the
trial, and on the contrary, one of the grounds on which he
rested the present application was, that there was no reason
for dismissing the plaintiff from the service, for that be had
not been guilty of any misconduct whatever.—Rule granted.
It was arranged that the peremptory paper should be
taken on Monday, and that the special paper on Tuesday
after the cases respectively appointed for those days had
been disposed of.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 8.

CREASE V.

This case came on for trial before Lord Lyndhurst dur-
ing the last Western Circuit. The action was brought for
the purpose of recovering certain tolls on tin. A verdict
was found for the plaintiff, damages 6141.
Mr. Sergeant COLERIDGE moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new
trial had, on the grounds that his Lordship had rejected
proper and received improper evidence ; and, further, that
the verdict was contrary to the evidence adduced. From
the statement, which was very long and intricate, made by
the Learned Counsel, it appeared that some tins paid a toll
of one-tenth to the Lord of the Manor, whilst others paid
but one-fifteenth. The Jury in this case awarded an
amount in damages equivalent to one-tenth,
The COURT granted a rule to show upon tlio points of
the sessional rule, the tenants' answers, the testimony of a
Mr. Rashleigh in proof of the boundaries of the land, and
the reduction of damages. -

MONSIEUR DE MALSAIGNES.---A French gen-
tleman informs us that the anecdote we gave in Ne! 0,, fr
the Memoirs of the Ppphpo of Abrantes, is not quite correct.
It would appear that the Malsaignes' adversary pinned him to
the door ; and finding that he could not on the instant disen •
gage his sword, prudently retreated a few paces nut of harm's
way. In the mertnwhil. Ai I
-A.84101163, hrainiiihing his w@apen,
gloried in the advantage which he imagined he had acquired;
rnd addressing. his antagonist, said, " Ha 1 Monsieur, you
can have no exit
interest
through the door, and then I shall repay
your thrust with !"-_The Parterre. •