The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-21 00:00:00

tEE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1835.

PRICES OF CANALS, DOCK. STOCKS,

ROLLS' COURT.-FRIDAY.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES, &c.&c. &c.

At the sitting of the Court his Honour the Mns•rEa of
the ROLLS gave judgmentin the following- case.

LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20.
Number Dividend. Price
of per CANALS. per
Shares. Annum. Paid. Share.
__. . . .

UXTON V. BUXTON.
His HONOUR said that the point to be decided in this
case was whether an executor had used a proper discretion
in the sale of Mexican Bonds. His Honour went through
the 'circumstances of the case; and commented upon the
various applications made to the executor. In the whole
case there was nothing to show that the executor had not
used a sound discretion. He was of opinion that the
Master had come to . a wrong conclusion, and that Mr.
Buxton, the executor, had used' a sound discretion in post-
poning the sale of the bonds. The exception must, there-
fore, be allowed.

, .. . .
1,71'0 61 per cent. Ashton and Oldharn....Average 971. 18s. sh.
1.482 6/. Ashby.de.le-'touch .. Average 113/. sh. 65
1,2.60 Basingstoke .. lOOl. sh. 5j
1,001 5/. Brecknock and Abergavenny 110 . sh, P 5
4,00/sh. 121.105. Birmingham, j share 111. lOs. 2501
4,00.1 - Ditto and Liverniol Junet....lM. 6h. all p:1 204
610 ' Bridgewater end Taunton ....10e1. sh. all pd 6l
400 :1. C.helmer and Bia;:k water 10(.4. sh. 102
500 401. Coventry lOO/. sh.
4,5;6 (2rovdon Average 311. 2s. 1(kl. sh.
i'.,061 34 10s. Dudley lO.l. sh. 16j
t; 0 Cl. Derby 1004 sh. 110
20,• ,;) Danube and Mayne ^-11/. 138.4 d. Si. pd 61
3,575 i , • Ellesmere and Chester Average 133/. sh. 85
231 43 . Erewash 1051. sh. 400
1,2:a 9.81. Forth and Clyde Average 4001. 1i:8. sh. (itO
11,F.0'.1 12/. Grand June"— 10(1. sh. 2`20
',',-191 d Union
Gran
...100/. sh. 25

KING'S BENCH.-FRIDAY.

. , ..
;,5.1. Grand Surrey IOU/. sh.
23,u00/. 41. per cent. Ditto (optional) Loan lOOl.
3,1436 Grand Western
• (100 131. 12s. 80. Glamorganshire, Average cost 172/. 13s. 4sl. 280
1960 Gloucester and Berkley 1001. sh. 15
749 lOs. Grantham 1501. sh. 202
0,238 1/. lOs Huddersfield Average 571. Os. RI sh. :341
lel Kensington 100 sh all pd. 10
21,328 11. Kennet and Avon, Average 591.85. 10d. sh. 14
2,8971 20/. Leeds and Liverpool 100/. sh. 530
515 124 Leicester l4Ol. sh.
007 41. Leicester and Northamiron...Aver SU. 10s. SO
530 5/. per cent. Liskeard and Looe Union 25/. sh. all pd. 23
70 144/. Loughborough Average 142/. 17s. sh. .
2,409 91. Monmouthshire 100/. sh. 190
V5O 9/. Melton Mowbray 1001. sh. 190
500 23/. Mersey and Irwell lOO/. sh. 58)
3,(00 Macclesfield 1001. sh. all pd. 56
217 151. Neat h 100/. sh 3CO
100 Nene Navigation Bonds ...li 01. sh. 100/. pd. 100
1,784 321. Oxford. 100/. sh. COO
5)2 '2l. Oakharn 130/. sh. :if;
2,400 4/. Peak Forest Average about 781. sh. NO
21,113 14s. Regent's (or London) Aver. :33/. les. Bd. sh. 151
5,6(19 51. per cent. ltochdale Average 851. sh. 141
500 Si. Shropshire 125/. sh. 140
80) . 101. Somerset Coal 150/. sh. 160
45,010/. 61 per cent. Ditto Lock Fund Stock lOl. 10s. sh. 12
700 30/. Stafford and Worcester llO/. sh. 690
. 500 11/. Shrewsbury 1:251 sh. 241
300 51. Stourbridge
3,647 1/. 10s. Stratford-on-Avon ...Average 791. 9s. Bcl. sh. : 9
533 13/. Swansea 1001. sh. 215
3;762 IL Severn and Wye and Railway ...Av :35/. sh. 171
2,0 t 1 sti. :121. 10s. Trent and Mersey, + share' ......: 1001. ' 1001. sh. 6:to
SA '
I,°"hl 15/. Warwick and Birmingham 100/. sh. 280
I,olXish.
980 124. Warwick and Napton lO9l. sh. 220
6,000 2/. lOs Worcester and Birmingham...A v. 761.84. sh. 85
20,100 tr,s. Wilts and Berk.... Average 67/. IN. Bd. sh. 23
800 61, Wyrley and Essington 1251 sh 75
IV> Wisbeach lO3l. sh. 45
905 11. Wey and Arun llO/. sh. 201,
DOCKS.
As
2,600 Ar h
3 3.p. c. Commercial 100/. sh. 591
1,1,05
198,6071/. 4 per cent. East India Stock 9.1
3,21,3,01/. sts. p. ct. London
Ditto Bonds
1,3'41,0004 5/. per ct. West India Stock
2.'..01 :3/. Cs. 4,1. Bristol Average 14:1. Bis. sh. 85
08,304/. 5/. per cent. Ditto Notes, various amounts llO
1.152,752 3 n..r cent. St. Katharine Stock 81
500,003 44 per rent. Ditto Bonds ...
200,000 4 per cent. Ditto Bonds for 10 years lOll
Shoreham Harbour
2YO ........ Deptford Pier . ..... 20/. sh. 14 pd 31

MURLER V. WILLIAMS.

Mr. CHANNELL appeared to support a demurrer put in
to the plaintiff's declaration. This was an action for the
infringement of a patent obtained by the plaintiff for the
manufacture of easy chairs. The declaration stated that
the plaintiff had obtained this patent which is set out, and
on which the grant of the Crown appeared to be, in the fol-
lowing terms :—" That his Majesty did give and grant unto
the plaintiff, his executors, administrators, and assigness, his
Majesty's especial license, full power, and sole privilege and
authority, that he the said plaintiff, by himself and by such
ethers as he should appoint, should from time to time and
at all times make, use, exercise, and vend his said invention,
within this part of the United Kingdom." The words of the
declaration imputed to the defendant that he had exposed
to sale a chair made upon the principle of the plaintiff's
invention. There was no authority to show that a mere
exposure to sale was an infringement of the patent. This
case must be decided by analogy.
Mr. JOHN EVANS, in support of the declaration, said
that the word in the patent was " vend", not " sell," and
that the two words described two perfectly different things.
In Jones v. Pearce, reported in the Supplement to Mr.
Godson's Book on Patents, the merely making the paten-
teed article was held an infringement of the patent. The
exposure to sale of an imitation of the article was surely a
stronger infringement of it, and the way in which it was
described in this case was perfectly good.
Mr. Justice PATTE SON was of opinion that this declara-
tion was bad.

Mr. Justice WILLIAMS was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGU concurred, and judgment was
given for the defendant.

BAIL COURT-FRIDAY.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE sat in this Court this morning,
for the purpose of hearing motions.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT applied to the Court for a rule
to show cause why a criminal information should not be
filed against Bugstock, the proprietor and editor of the
Welchnian newspaper, for publishing a libel on the Mayor
of Cacrmarthen. The libel charged the Mayor with pro-
stituting his magisterial authority to political purposes.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE granted a rule Nisi.

COMMON PLEAS-FRIDAY.