The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-15 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.-CROSSLEY V. THE DERBY GAS COMPANY.

This was a-bill filed to restrain the defendants from using
a gas meter, of which the patent right was in the plaintiff.
and praying an account of the profits received by the Com-
pany for the use and sale of the meters made according to
the plaintiff's specification. The Vice-Chancellor granted
the injunction, and ordered the account. Against this deci-
sion the defendants appealed, and the question was argued
a few days ago.
His Lordship, in giving judgment, was of opinion now,
as he had been during the argument, that the objections
taken by the defendants to the plaintiff's right on account
of the defective language of the specification of the patent
could not be sustained, and that the validity of-the, plain-
tiff's title to a property in the invention of the meters had
been clearly established. The more important part of the
`defendant's answer to the plaintiff's claim was the delay
that had taken place in the filing of the bill, the patent ex-
piring in ten days after the time when the plaintiff com-
menced the present suit. On the plaintiff lay the necessity
of explaining this delay ; and his Lordship was of opinion
that he had done so satisfactorily. The plaintiff had made
out his case, and the decree of the Court below must be
affirmed with costs.

ROLLS' COURT, Nov. 14.

ARNOLD V. ARNOLD.

Mr. BLENMAN, in whose absence this case had stood
over a day or two ago, appeared for the petitioner, Louisa
Harriet Adams, the testator's natural daughter. The be-
quest, the subject of the present application, was as fol-
lows :—" To my dear child Louisa Harriet Adams interest
of Calcutta sicca rupees 100,000, to be invested in the
Company's English stock, or some other equally good secu-
rities, as soon after my death as is inconvenient. And if
100,000 be not sufficient to purchase stock to that amount
the deficiency is to be supplied in like manner, and if that
sum be remitted to England it is not to fall short of pounds
sterling 10,000 i, when invested in the funds." The ques-
tion was, whether or no this bequest gave the present peti-
tioner an absolute interest in the gift in question. The
testator in the next bequest to the one the subject of the
present application gave to the petitioner's mother the in-
terest of 10,000 Calcutta sicca rupees for life, with a re-
mainder over. Besides, there was this further circum-
stance, which he thought important, namely, the declara-
tion in the will, that if any disputes arose between his
executors he hoped they would be amicably settled without
recourse to law, and any doubtful or obscure passage should
be construed for the benefit of his daughter Louisa Harriet
Adams. From these circumstances it was manifestly the
intention of the testator that the petitioner should take the
capital as well as interest.

Mr. BICKERSTETII, for the plaintiffs, as he could only on
the one hand maintain that the gift was absolute, so on the
other hand, he could only contend that it was subject, in
common with all the abet: legacies, to abatement. But
there was another and more important question in the case,
namely, what ought to be the amount of the fund set apart
to satisfy this legacy, supposing the estate not to have been
insufficient. His Honour had beard the terms of the be-
quest, and it now was necessary to determine whether the
sum was to be 10,000/. in cash, or the value of that sum in
the Stocks.

Mr. BLENMAN apprehended that if there was any doubt
on this point the declaration that every thine obscure and
doubtful was to be construed for the benefit the present
petitioner would at once decide the question.
His HONOUR felt no doubt whatever on this. point. The
testator directed the sum, if in England, to be calculated
in English money, but if in India, the Company's Stock
was to be the criterion. On the other points of the case,
he (the Master of the Rolls should reserve his judgment
till to-morrow (this day.) •

BAIL COURT, Nov. 12.

THE MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. KELLY moved for a Rule to show cause why a man-
damus should not issue to the Manchester and Liverpool
Railway Company, commanding them to empanel a Jury,
for the purpose of ascertaining what damages Messrs. Bath
and Co., plaster-of-Paris manufacturers, were entitled to, as
compensation for the loss of the prospect of the renewal of
their lease of certain premises on which they carried on their
business. The Learned Counsel stated, that the above
Company was incorporated by the Act 7 Geo. IV., and a
subsequent Act, 2 'William IV., enlarged the powers of the
Company, authorizing them to purchase additional lands,
premises, &c., for the purposes of the Act.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.
THE KING V,,,J AMIS.

Mr. COOPER moved to make a rule absolute for admit-
ting the defendant, who had been committed on a charge of
maliciously shooting, to bail. It appeared from the affida-
vits of the defendants, and on which the rule nisi was ob-
tained, thrt on the night of the 31st August the defendant,
and a man named Shadbolt, servants to Mr. Calvert, a gen-
tleman residing near Cambridge, saw two men named
Chamberlain and Rosin near a plantation belonging to their
master ; that James had a gun, and on seeing them said to
Shadbolt, " Those men don't look like poachers, do they ?"
and presently after, on their coming up with them, Cham-
berlain said, " Good morning to you ; don't shoot all the
game." They then both ran away, upon which the defend-
ant James called out to them to stop, and said, " Master
wants to speak to you ;" they refused, and he in the hurry
and excitement of the moment fired at them, at a time when
they were forty yards off, and Chamberlain was wounded.
The defendant James denied in his affidavit any intention
of doing him any bodily harm, and as soon as he saw what
had happened he went up to him and expressed his regret.
He afterwards picked up a hare which Chamberlain had
thrown away in his flight, and on his companion (Rosin)
several snares were found.

The motion not being opposed, the Court ordered the de-
fendant to be admitted to bail, himself in 1001. and two
sureties in 2.51. each.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 14.

DUCK V. GOSLING.

Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE stated that this was an action
respecting a pond, which the plaintiff charged the defendant
with having emptied. It was tried by Mr. Justice Park a
few days back, at the Westminster Sessions-house, when a
verdict was found for the plaintiff, with 301. damages. By
leave of the Learned Judge he now moved to set aside that
verdict, and have a nonsuit entered.
Rule to show cause granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 14.