The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-10 00:00:00

TAYLOR V. HITCHCOCK.

Mr. KNIGHT moved that the defendants should be com-
mitted to the Fleet for breach of an injunction obtained in
this cause in December, 1834, restraining them from selling
a species of thread under a particular appellation, which
was the property of the plaintiff.
Mr. JACOB opposed the motion.
His HONOUR thought-that the breach of the injunction
was clearly made out against the defendant ; and he must,
therefore, commit them to the Fleet, unless the parties could
arrange the business out of Court.

COMMON PLEA S.-WEDNE SD AY.

CORNISH AND ANOTHER V. KEENE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought for an infringement of a patent.
The patent in question was obtained by the sculptor
Seivier. It was for the manufacture of India rubber web
as well as cloth. After the appearance of Mr. Seivier's
invention the defendants introduced to the market a similar
production, varying only in its elasticity. The patent ob-
tained by Mr. Seivier was for the unadulterated manufac-
ture of India rubber web. That offered to the public by
the defendants was with a mixture of cotton.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, on the part of the plaintiffs,
after entering into a long detail of the numerous infringe-
ments of the patent,'stated that the patent of Mr. Seivier
was obtained on the 17th of January, 1833, and its speci-
fication guaranteed to the public the pure manufacture of
the Indian rubber into web. The defendants joined various
issues. First, That they were not guilty of any infringe-
ment ; secondly, It was not a new invention, and ought
not to be protected ; thirdly, That the article was well
known in England ; fourthly, That the goods were not an
improvement on the old manufacture ; and, lastly, That the
specification was not distinct. An injunction was obtained
by Mr. Seivier against the defendants. The Court sent
the issue to a Court of law. On the part of the plaintiff
numerous witnesses were examined, chiefly medical men of
the first respectability, who testified to the value of the
web manufactured by Mr. Seivier for surgical purposes.
Tailors bore testimony of the nature of the cloth, particu-
larly of a coarse kind, adapted for working people, the elas-
ticity of which yields to the impulsive motion of the body,
at the same time affording great warmth.
Sir F. POLLOCK, for the defendants, went into minute
detail of the evidence which he would offer.

The Jury found a.verdiet for the plaintiff. Damages—
One shilling.

INSOLVENT COURT-WEDNESDAY

Dudley Robert Edward Heneage, known by the name
of Dudley Heneage, was heard this morning on his pe-
tition praying to be discharged.
The schedule, filed by the insolvent, who is related to se-
veral Noble families, exhibits creditors to the number of
sixty-nine, whose debts amount in the aggregate to
9,2221. 9s. 7d., of which sum he has received consideration
for 8,0051. ls. 4d. He had formerly been a Lieutenant
in the 10th Hussars, then a Cornet in the same regiment,
and afterwards a Lieutenant in the 13th Light Dragoons,
and latterly residing in Upper Stamford-street, Blackfriars-
road ; whilst there, assuming the name of David Hamilton.
Among the many items in his balance-sheet,, was one of
600/., lost at play at Boulogne.
The insolvent ascribed his insolvency to having entered
an expensive regiment ; to the extravagant charges made
by several of the tradesmen with whom he dealt ; to the
great facility afforded in incurring heavy debts, and the dis-
appointment in the receipt of money, and various losses.'
The insolvent was then examined by Mr. PHILLIPS. In
March, 1832, he. executed an assignment to his father of
his reversionary interest under the marriage settlement,
since which period he had incurred many debts. He had
in 1832 purchased about 200/. worth of jewellery of Mr.
Rowland, of Coventry-street, Haymarket. He pledged
some of the articles a few months after he obtained them,
and a ring, for which he was charged 311. 10s., he lost by
accident. From Mr. Hays, another jeweller, in 1833, he
had various articles. A watch he had of him he lost
out of his pocket in Dublin. For a ring he was
charged by Mr. Hays, 34/., which he sold in 1834
for about 8/. At the time he was incurring the se-
veral debts, he had an allowance from his father of
300/. a-year, which, together with his pay a Lieute-
nant in the Hussars, amounted to 464/. The insolvent ad-
mitted that that sum was inadequate to maintain his station
in the regiment, which, be said, was a very expensive one.
In 1832 and 1833, he made presents of articles of jewellery
to the amount of 300/. In July, 1833, he purchased of
Messrs. Burnand a carriage for 333/., which he sold in the
March following for 200/. In July, 1833, he had two guns
of Westley Richards for 75/. These, he said, were pawned
by a friend without being used. In the year 1829, he pur-
chased two guns of Mr. Purdy for 105/. ; he sold them in
1833 or 1834 for 40/. In the years 1832 and 1833, after
the assignment to his father, he incurred debts for jewellery
to the amount of 7001. In those two years his debts for
clothes were 6001. ; he was dealing with several tailors at
the same time, but not one of them knew of the circum-
stance. His bills for boots amounted to a large sum. In
1832 and 1833 he obtained goods of Mr. Cooke, a tailor,
and from Mr. Burgheat, another tailor—during the same
period he purchased an easy chair for 15/. These debts ha
said he expected his father would have paid : he had paid
some, but was not aware he was incurring others.
The insolvent was then questioned by Mr. COOKE. Ho
said his father purchased his Lieutenancy in the Hussars.
When he entered he was only eighteen years of age, and
soon began to incur debts.
The insolvent, in answer "to a question of the CHIEF
COMMISSIONER, said he was now 28 years of age.

The Learned COMMISSIONER sentenced the insolvent, at
the suit of the above-mentioned creditors (being discharged
as to the other debts), for a period of eighteen calendar
months from the date of filing his petition, for contracting
the debts without reasonable expectations of payment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

LAMBETH-STREET.

Yesterday Thomas Sullivan, William Jourdan, and An-
drew Morrison, who have been in custody for the last
week, the two former with being concerned in breaking
into the Custom House on the night of the 27th of No-
vember, 1834, and stealing therefrom bank-notes and gold,
amounting to upwards of 5,0001., and the latter with being
an accessary, both before and after the fact, were brought
before Messrs. HARDWICK and NORTON for further exa-
mination.

Mr. Hobler, in the absence of Mr. Adolphus, who had
not arrived at the time, said that after offering evidence to
prove that the robbery of which the prisoners were sus-
pected of being concerned in, and the ground upon which
they were so suspected, and also, in the absence of some
parties connected with the Custom House, through whose
instrumentality he had reason to think, and there were good
grounds for suspecting, the robbery had been effected, it
would be his duty to call on the Magistrates to remand the
prisoners for a fortnight, in order to give time to the officer
to procure further evidence in the case, as well 'as to
produce witnesses from different places, some from the
Continent. Mr. Hobler then called Mr. Frederick
Thomas Walsh, who deposed that he was the receiver
of fines and forfeitures in his Majesty's Customs, which
situation he had held for two years and a half. On the
evening of the 27th of November, 1834, he had in his pos-
session about 5,000/. in bank notes and gold, the principal
part of which was in notes, and this sum he deposited in a
chest to which there were two. locks, of one of which lie
(witness) had the key. After so placing the money in the
chest he put on a padlock, locked it, and placed the key in
his drawer, and the person who had the key of the other
lock was there at the time, and as he believed, used it in
locking the chest. On his (Mr. Walsh's) return on the
following morning, he found two of his clerks in the office,
and ascertained that the chest during the night had been
broken open and the money taken away. On examining it
he perceived that the lock, of which the person he had be-
fore alluded to had the key, had been unlocked, and the
other, of which he (witness) had the key, had Veen broken
open. He also found the key of the latter in his desk
where he had deposited it on the previous evening.
James Lea, an officer of this establishment, from informa-
tion he had received, apprehended the prisoners on suspi-
cion of being concerned in the robbery mentioned by the
last witness, but he had not sufficient time as yet afforded
him to make out the case against them.
Mr. Clarkson observed that the officer must state some
grounds to justify the Magistrates in detaining the prisoners
for the time required.
Lea said that through having found in the possession of
the prisoner Jourdan a receipt for 100/. deposited in the
banking-house of Messrs. Western and Young, in the Bo-
rough, in the name of John Leary, he had been enabled to
ascertain that on the 27th of November, 1834, .the very
day on the night of which the robbery had been committed,
a female, who passed as the wife of the prisoner Jourdan,
deposited in the same banking-house 400/. in cash. At that
time Jourdan resided in Stangate-street, Lambeth, and
went by the name of Leary, and represented himself as
a jeweller. He subsequently removed to White Hart-
row, Kennington, when he resumed his real name, but re-
presented himself as an American merchant ; and while
there, both himself and the female before named had at
different times deposited and drawn out as much as 1,100/.
at different times. On comparing the sums which were
banked after the robbery with the period at which some of
the stolen notes were changed, both on the Continent and
in the country, he found them to correspond, and he had
no doubt he should be able at another time to prove that
the former was the produce of the latter. Other circum-
stances, such as the persons of the prisoners, Jourdon and
Sullivan, answering the description which he had received