The Sun.
London, England, 1866-12-08 00:00:00

always believed, that the process of Dixon and Co.
was protected by an American patent, and that
they had not discovered that this was not the case
until the proceedings before the police-court.
As the defendant was not heard, and the decision
turned entirely upon the right of the plaintiffs to
relief, having regard to their wrongful assumption
of the term "patent," we do not enter into the case
of the defendant upon the merits.
Mr. Daniel, Q.C., and Mr. G. W. Hemmings,
on behalf of the plaintiffs, contended that an extreme
and flagrant case of robbery of the plaintiffs' desig-
nation was established against the defendant, and
that although the Court declined to interfere in
these cases between wrongdoers, yet this principle
of outlawing a plaintiff from the protection of the
Court would not be applied where no fraudulent
intention could be attributed to him, and where
there was some ground for making the reprezenta-
tion. The plaintiffs had adopted the term 4, patent"
in perfect good faith, and under the impression that
Dixon and Co. were patentees ; and although they
had been mistaken, there had been nothing ap-
proaching to intentional misrepresentation on their
part such as would induce the Court to withhold
relief.

Mr. Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Haddam, and Mr. Freel-
ing for the defendant were not called upon.
The Vice-Chancellor dismissed the bill with ecsts,
observing that the conduct of the plaintiffs in
making a representation as to these crucibles being
patented without any reasonable ground for s.-P-
-posing such representation to be true was the same
n the eye of the law (however innocently made,
and however innocent in its effects upon the public),
as a simple and deliberate attempt to defraud Loci
mislead the public. In the contract of purchase
from Messrs. Dixon there was not a syllable about
any patent, and even if the plaintiffs (who might
have ascertained the fact by searching the American
records) did believe that Dixon and Co. held a
patent, why did they use such a stamp, ,4 Morgar
and Co., J. Dixon and Co.'s Patent," as woulc-
necessarily lead the public to believe that the paten%
under which these crucibles were being sold was
English, and not American? It was not like con-
tinuing to call an article patented after the patent
had expired, but it was an application of the term
to that which had never been patented at all, either
in this country or in the United States. By oro-
tecting the plaintiffs in the use of their title the
Court would be assisting them to mislead and de-
ceive the public, and under all the circumstances
the bill must be dismissed with costs.

The Pound Sterling.

A correspondent of the New York Journal of
Commerce states the following as the data front
which to calculate the value of a pound sterling
In England 22 ounces of pure gold are gilled
with 2 ounces of alloy ; this is called 22 carats fine,
and is valued at £3 17s. 10d., 2 grains an ounce.
In the United States 90 ounces of pure gold 15
mixed with 10 ounces of alloy of no value. 100
ounces of coin is worth $1,850 46 ; an ounce of
coin is worth $lB 60.

One ounce of pure gold, 1,000 fine, is coined into
$20.67 18-100.

A sovereign of England (new) weighs 5 dwts.
3 grains (worn ones not so much), and passes for a
pound.

By the above statement you may compute the in-
trinsic value of a sovereign or pound. By the help
of a little arithmetic you will find that a pound
sterling is $4 86-3 mills, and a little over.
Less than 100 years since one of the States passed
a law that if any one owed 28 shillings he should
be allowed to settle it with a guinea, which NOS
called 21 shillings, and weighed 5 dwts. 9 grains•
Since then the British Mint changed the coinage,
and made sovereigns of 20 shillings.
Twenty-one sovereigns to go for 20 guineas. The
21 sovereigns contain more pure gold than 20 gui-
neas by several shillings value. - -