The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-14 00:00:00

PLACES OF MEETING.

A report was brought up by tho Committee appointed
to select a site where the board could hold their future
meetings. The committee had been in communication
with the Presidert of the Board of Works and Land
Revenue, for a house in Spring-gardens ; but the lease
to he granted ran so short, and the amount required for
it so large, that t•ie committee recommended that offices
and a board-room should be erected on their premises in
Greek-street.

Mr. SEELEY dlubted the propriety of their fixing on
Greek-street for their future residence. The committee,
which was composed of seven gentlemen, four belonging
to Westminster and two to the City, and none from the
East, travelled from Greek-street to Charing-cross, which
was their centre of attraction, and finding no place there
that would suit them, travelled back to Greek-street
again, and decided on that spot. Ere considered the
Royal Exchange the most central spot. If they driw a

line from Temple-bar, north and south, they would find
thirty-five of the members resided east of Temple-bar,
and but 15 west of it. The former gentleman repre-
sented about 2i millions, and the latter about 800,000
inhabitants. He moved the re-consideration of the
question, to endeavour to find a convenient spot within
a mile of the Exchange.

Mr. DIXON seconded the amendment.
A discussion ensued, in the course of which the board
was addressed by Mr. llawkes (who defended the com-
mittee from the imputation of partiality to the west-end
at the expense of the east-end or any other part of the
metropolis), Mr. Davies, Mr. Hall, Mr. Howe, Mr
Collison, Mr. Knight, Mr. Snow, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Crel-
lin, Mr. bowman Taylor, Mr. Savage, and Major
Lyon. It was stated that the new premises would cost
between 20,0001. and 30,0001,, whereas their own free-
hold might be adopted to their wants, and afford every
accommodation, at an expenditure of only 2,0001. or
3,0001.
Mr. SEELEY denied that he wished to impute anything
improper to the committee in their partiality for the
Weat-end.
The CHAIRMAN put the amendment, which was lost.
Mr. OFFER than moved, axi
SAVAGE seconded,
that the report be referred to the committee (with the
addition of five members) for further consideration.
(We shall give the conclusion in cur last edition.)

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

'Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Ju9tice Campbell,
Justices Coleridge, Wightrnan, and Crompton.)
LISTER AND ANOTHER V. LEATHER.

Sir F. Thesiger said that this action for the infringe.
ment of a patent was tried at the London sittings at
Guildhall oa the 21st and 22d December, before Lord
Campbell, when the verdict was for the defendant. He now
applied to their lordships for a rule for a new trial. He
was not, however, prepared to say that he moved on the
ground of misdirection, although the learned judge who
tried the case undoubtedly used expressions likely to mis-
lead persons ignorant of patents ; but he must complain
of that non-direction in the case which his lordship's
great experience and extensive knowledge of this subject
might have assisted the jury with, and for the want of
which had led the jury to a wrong view of the case, to
the surprise of the wool-combing trade, and contrary to
the evidence adduced on the trial. He intended also
to move on affidavits. The action was brought
relative to two patents granted to the plaintiff,
in 1850 and 1852 for improvements in preparing and
combing wool and other fibrous material. The defendant
pleaded all the usual pleas in such actions, amongst
others, that of want of novelty, but not want of utility.
The defendant gave notice of no less than 68 objections,
in which were included 3. patents, which, it was alleged,
had anticipated the inventions of the plaintiffs, and whick
pleas were the greatest abuse of the act that had ever
been known.
Lord Campbell said he thought so, and expressed
that opinion on the trial.
Sir F. Thesiger—The objections were reduced to three
or four, and ultimately to one, that of a patent granted
to a person named Tiernan in 1846, and on that the
jury returned their verdict, on the ground that there
was no novelty in the plaintiff's patent, but that it was
substantially the same as Ileman's. Sir F. Thesiger
having entered into the various patents that had been
invented for wool combing, &a., comparing them with
that of the plaintiff's, the evidence adduced on the trial,
and the affidavits on which he moved, the Court granted
the application.
Rule granted accordingly;