The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-21 00:00:00

sacred

6.etrantees, which can be dissolved only with
the full and mutual consent of the contracting parties.
The accident d Sit it F'eel's dbgeliee haVitig deta-
sioned the Duke of Wellington to retain for a short
time the seals of several offices in his own hands, has
raised a silly commotion •in the two papers whose
masters have each a personal cause of exasperation.
The truth is, that in ordinary cases, when one Minis-
ter goes out of town, his scads are invariably handed
over pro lempore to some one of his colleagues. Mr.
Spring Rice, for instance, has been for some months
almost the only representative of the Government in
Lon don

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 20.

COLLINGE V. BEAUMONT,

Mr. Brettitsimit had in this case to shot cause why
an injunction, granted to restrain the defendant from pro-
ceeding with an action at law, should not be dissolved.
The defendant, Mr. Beaumont, obtained a patent, dated
the 20th of July, 1820, for certain improvements in the
machinery of power-looms, and by ah agreement dated the
Ist of June, 1824, he agreed with the plaintiffs, Messrs.
Collinge and Lancashire, to grant to them the benefit of
his invention upon certain terms. The agreement recited
that the defendant, Mr. Beaumont, had made certain lin.
provements in the machinery of power-looms ; that he had
obtained a patent for his invention, and that he had agreed
to allow the plaintiffs the benefit of his invention, in consi-
deration of two guineas premium, independent of the price
of each loom, and of a rent of 20g. per annum for each
loom weaving cloth over 13 feet, and 10s. for each loom
weaving cloth under 13 feet, during the time the looms
were contracted to be used. This agreement was carried
into effect ; looms were purchased at the premium above
mentioned, and the plaintiffs amounted according to the
terms of the agreement from June, 1824, to Christmas,
1825. From 1825 the account was taken on an entirely
different footing, and the validity of the patent was
doubted, it being alleged that the improvements in
question were not the invention of the defendant;
but had been discovered by other persons at a date
long anterior to the date of the patent. Besides, it
was alleged that at the time mentioned the defendant was
perfectly aware that his patent could not be supported, and
that he had consequently abandoned his claim for premium
and rent under the agreement. From Christmas, 1825,
' down to the beginning of 1834, for the space of eight years,
no rent or premium in respect to the patent rights was ever
paid, or in any way recognised by the plaintiffs. In 1834,
the defendant brought an action for the purpose of re-
covering the rents and premiums due under the agreement.
A plea was put into that action. That plea had been de-
murred to, and the question on the demurrer would be
whether the implied abandonment by the defendant of his
rights under the agreement amounted to an estoppel. The
demurrer would come on for hearing about February next,
but in the meantime the defendant might, if he wished, try
the validity of his patent in a scire facia:. The chief
ground advanced in support of the present application was
that there had been on the part of the defendant an aban-
donment of his rights under the agreement of June 1834,
and in support of that allegation the accounts taken subse-
quent to Christmas, 1825, were adduced.
Mr. PEMBERTON, on behalf of the defendant, submitted
that the information ought to be dissolved, with costs.
His Honour, the MASTER of the ROLLS said, upon the
question of contract nothing had been shown to induce a
Court of Equity to interfere, and, consequently, the in-
, junction must be discharged, and the order made absolute.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 20.

'HE KING V.

Sir J. SCARLETT appeared on behalf Lord Middleton to
move for a rule to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against a gentleman who had formerly
held a high rank in the army. He should not mention the
name of the individual, as it might perhaps produce irrita-
tions without doing the parties any benefit. Some time
since the individual in question held a commission in the
army ; he had been long acquainted with Lord Middleton ;
and the fact of his not being now in the army arose from
the circumstance of his having very weak health, which
had induced his friends to recommend him to sell his com-
mission, and retire from the army. Lord Middleton was
one of those who persuaded him to do so ; and, to induce
him to do had offered him, free of rent, the occupation of a
cottage that belonged to his Lordship in Nottinghamshire.
The gentleman accordingly sold out, and took possession of
the cottage. He thereby became a near neighbour of Lord
Middleton, and was a constant visitor at his Lordship's
house. Things went on in this manner till a family dis-
agreement arose, when Lord Middleton requested him to
leave the cottage, and desired that he would not again
visit at his Lordship's house. His Lordship, however,
in order that he might not be injured by giving up
the cottage, proposed to indemnify him for the loss of
living rent-free by giving him a sum of 5001., with which
to furnish another house,• and by paying him a sum of 100
guineas per annum. His Lordship had borrowed the sum
which this individual had received on the sale of his com-
mission, and that sum too was repaid him, together with Si.
per cent. interest for the same. The terms proposed by his
Lordship vs ere, after some dispute, agreed upon between
the parties. Not long, however, after the arrangement had
been made, this individual began writing a series of pro-
voking letters to his Lordship, accusing him of being base
and dishonest, and of having made false accusations against
him, and of having made representations that were bare-
faced lies. When letters of this sort were written, his
Lordship had no alternative but to take this proceeding.—
Rule granted.