The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-13 00:00:00

EVENING,

Mr. WILDE said that his application referred to all
the cases against the London Dock Company, but not
to those of the St. Katharine Dock Company.
Mr. GROVE, on the part of the Dock Company con-
sented, and the application was granted.
The Court rose at half-past one o'clock for the no-
mination of Sheriffs by the Privy Council.
(Sittings in London at Nisi Prius in Michaelmas
Term, before Mr. Baron MARTIN, and Common
Juries.)

This was the "first sittings" for Michaelmas Term
at Nisi Prins.

MILLER 29. HATCH.

This was an action on a bill of exchange for 851.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Bramwell and Mr. Jones were counsel for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Petersdorff appeared for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff in this cases, it appeared, was foreman
and brother-in-law to Mr. Bennett, of Hart-street,
Bloomsbury, pencil-brush manufacturer; while the
defendant was a wholesale furrier in Friday-street. It
seemed that from the statement of the Learned
Counsel who appeared for the plaintiff, that in the
month of September, 1848, Mr. Bennett was indebted
to the plaintiff to the extent of 851. for wages, and it
was represented that Mr. Bennett had an interview
with the defendant, and bad arranged that he (the
plaintiff) should draw a bill, which should be ac-
cepted by Bennett and endorsed by the defendant,
and that the proceeds of the acceptance, after
it had been discounted, were to be handed 9ver
to the plaintiff. The bill was accordingly
drawn, accepted, and endorsed, as stated, on the 4th
of September, 1848, and it was then delivered to the
defendant to get it discounted ; it appeared, however,
at the same time, that various mercantile transac-
tions were existing between Mr. Bennett and the
defendant, to whom, it was alleged, he owed a con-
siderable sum of money. The plaintiff never received
any part of the proceeds of the bill. In the course
of October, 1848, Mr. Bennett got into difficulties,
and the plaintiff never heard of the bill until he re-
ceived an application for its payment at the expira-
tion of twelvemonths, the date at which the accep-
tance was drawn.

Mr. Bennett and the plaintiff were called, who
stated in substance, that the bill was drawn with the
express understanding that the money should be
handed to the defendant, fend that it was totally ir-
respective of any business transactions which might
have existed between Mr. Bennett and plaintiff.
Mr. PETERSDORFF contended that the defendant
neither contemplated nor intended to benefit the plain-
tiff, but to get the best security he could for goods
which he had caused through his introduction to be
supplied to Bennett.
The defendant was called, and stated that Bennett
was indebted to him to the amount of 5001. in the
month of October, 1848, and that the bill in question
was given to secure the payment for the goods which
he had caused to be supplied.
Mr. Baron MARTIN summed up, and in the course
of his observations said the jury would have a very
painful duty to perform, as the statement of the
plaintiff and his witness was totally at variance
with the evidence of the defendant. The jury would,
however, weigh the probalities of the case, and, after
giving it their best attention, deliver their verdict
accordingly.
The jury, after a long consultation, and having ex-
pressed a wish to be released from delivering a ver-
dict in so distressing a case, retired, and eventually
returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 851.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Messrs. Halladay and Clemitson, of Watling-street,
appeared before Alderman Sir Robert Walter Car-
den and Alderman Wilson, on an information, charg-
ing them %Rh making and selling an article of wear-
ing apparel, alleged to be a fraudulent imitation of a
design called a "Pella," registered by Messrs Phelps,
M'Morland and Co.

111 r: Hindmarsh, instructed by Mr. Gray, con-
ducted the case for the complainants, and Mr. Web-
ster, instructed by Mr. Parker, appeared for the
defendants.
Mr. Hindmarsh said that Messrs. M'Morland and
Co. were the proprietors of a registered design for a
shawl, to which was attached a hood in such a manner
that the combination of the two articles made them
subservient to the purposes of either a cloak or a shawl.
The defendants bad brought out an article identically
the same, or so closely like, as to render it a fraudulent
imitation.

The registered article and the copy were then pro-
duced, and compared, when Sir R. W. CARDEN re-
marked that he could not perceive the slightest diffe-
rence between them.

Mr. Webster readily admitted that when in wear
they were to all appearances precisely similar, only
that the alleged copy was an improvement upon the
other, in consequence of the hood being removed at
the pleasure of the wearer. That, however, was not
the ground of the defence.

Mr. Hindmarsh said he hid received some intima-
tion that the defence intended to be set up was, that it
was not new or original, as the idea of a shawl or a
hood separately was as old as the hills. He, however,
assured his Learned Friend that Lord Campbell de-
cided, in the Court of Queen's Bench, on Saturday
last, in a case where a registered " button" was
sought to be protected—his Lordship said, that
tbough the Queen's arms and the garter, or
scroll, with a motto, were each of them in-
dividually old, yet the combination of those sub-
jects might be so arranged as to form a pretty
and original design, and therefore would have a fair
claim to protection. That case was precisely the
same as the one in dispute; though the component
parts of the article were old in themselves, the novelty
consisted in the combination.

It was then shown by witnesses that if the shape
and configuration of the shawl or hood were altered
by the complainants in their manufacture, no matter
how materially, so long as they still remained a shawl
or a hood, it would not prejudice the registration,
provided that the combination was retained.
Mr. 'Webster then stated the two Acts of Parlia-
ment under which these proceedings were taken quite
put the complainant out of court. The first was the
" Ornamental" Act, and the other was the " Non-
ornamental, or Utility" Act. He contended, there-
fore, that the article registered by the complainant
was not an article for registration, but ought to have
been patented. For as the shape and configuration
might be altered without affecting the registration,
it was then simply a combination of material parts
that ought to have been made the subject of a patent.
Alderman Winsort asked Mr. Webster if he
thought the complainants would have had a stronger
right under a patent ?—Mr. Webster said undoubt-
edly they would. They ought never to have regis-
tered it, since they have not done so for its shape or
configuration.
Alderman WILSON wished to know what was meant
by the word "configuration," as two of the chief jus-
tices had differed upon that point 7—Mr. Webster said
he could not give a better illustration than that of the
" button" bis friend quoted, wherein it was decided
that the combination formed a pretty pattern that
might be termed a "new and ornamental shape or con-
figuration."
Sir R. W. CARDER inquired if Mr. Webster meant
to contend that complainants could not claim any
protection under the registration certificate ? Mr.
Webster said he certainly did, and if the complain-
ants had had any discretion they would never have
registered an article of that description.
Sir R. W. CARDEN said he thought he could not
adjudicate in this case, unless it was proved that the
the defendants resided at the premises in Watling-
street, as in the event of a conviction ha could not
enforce the order.
Mr. Hindmarsh said he was not in a position to
prove that, and he would, therefore, leave it to the
aldermen whether they would adjourn the summons
or dismiss it.
The summons was then dismissed without costs.
John Tebbitt, the man who was stated to be con-
nected with a gang of horse chaunters, and who has
been remanded from time to time, in consequence of
his being unable to leave the hospital from injuries
he received on being thrown from a horse he was
charged with stealing, was committed to Newgate for
trial.
Neil Mac Shane, who was charged with assaulting
Margaret Bosphar, by striking her on the head with
an immense kitchen poker, and thereby endangering
her life, was also brought up and committed for trial.

John Mansell Schmidt, a young man who had lost
BOli,-STREET.
his right arm, and was described as a Chelsea pen-
sioner, was brought before Mr. Henry, charged with
embezzling small sums of money, amounting to 40/.,
which he bad received on behalf of Baron de Tremb-
lay, an exhibitor of China wares in the French de-
partment of the Great Exhibition.
The prisoner had been employed to deliver articles
purchased of the prosecutor, and to receive the
amounts charged for them. Four cases only were se-
lected from a great number for prosecution.
Mr. E. G. Smith, of Wilton-crescent, proved the
payment of 31. 16s. to the prisoner in behalf of Cap-
tain Archibald Robertson for articles purchased of the
Baron at the Great Exhibition.
The butler of the Hon. Mrs. Bathurst, of Gros-
vanor- square, deposed to having made a similar pay-
ment to the prisoner for his mistress.
Evidence was also given of similar payments on
behalf of Mr. J. Moraut, of Park-lane, and Mr. T,
Campbell, sculptor, of Marlborough-street.
Alexis de Tremblay, the prosecutor, deposed that
the prisoner did not account to him for any of these
payments, although furnished with the articles to
which they related for delivery to the purchasers.
The prisoner, who said he should reserve his defence
for a jury, was committed for trial.
OL4RK.EIVIVELL.
Mr, Thomas ,Davis, Vernon-pl Ace, Bagnigge