The Sun.
London, England, 1857-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell, Justices
Celeridge, Wightman, and Erle.)
BETTS V, MENZIES.

Mr. Montagne Smith, Q.C., moved in this case,
pursuant to leave, for a new rule, to show cause why the
verdict found for the plaintiff should not be set aside and
entered for the defendant, or that a new trial be bad.
The action, which was tried before Lord Campbell at
the sittings after last term, was brought by the plaintiff,
the well known patent brandy manufacturer, for the in-
fringement of a patent obtained by him in 1843 for the
use and manufacture of dutch metals, lead and tin, by
means of compression into foil, for the purpose of manu-
facturing capsules, for casing bottles and other ♦essels.
The ground upon which the learned counsel moved
the rule was, that the invention of the plaintiff was not
new, but essentially the same as that of one Dobbs, who
obtained a patent for the admixture of metal in 1804,
and, therefore, no novelty ; and also on the ground of
misdirection. At the trial it was shown that the plain-
tiff had never seen or knew of the invention or patent of
Dobbs.

The Court granted a rule to show cause on the points
of law, it being admitted that the verdict as to the in
fringement was correct.

LE NEVE V. THE VESTRY OF THE HAMLET OF MILI-END

OLD TOWN.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., with Mr. R. P. Collier,
M.P., moved for a rule nisi, to net aside the verdict
found for the plaintiff, and that it be entered for the
defendant.

The action, which was tried before Mr. Justice Wight.
man at the sittings after last term, was brought by the
plaintiff, the proprietor of the Earl Grey Tavern, Mile.
end-road, for trespass and the illegal pulling down of a
certain building or shed in front of the plaintiff's pre-
mises. The defendants justified their right to pull down
the building under the 120th sec. of the 18th and 19th
Viet., cap. 120—the Metropolitan Local Management
Act.

The Court granted a rule to show cause.
ILACKMORE V. THE BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and children, against the company, under
Lord Campbell's Act, for compensation for injeries sus-
tained by one John Blackmore, the husband of the
plaintiff, by which he was killed, owing to the alleged
negligence of the company, through the breaking of a
crane provided by the company for the unloading heavy
goods. The case was tried at Bristol, when Mr. Justice
Coleridge, who tried the case, directed a non-suit to be
returned, because deceased volunteered his services, and
with leave to move to enter a verdict for 2501.

Mr. Phinn, Q C., accordingly moved to-day, on the
ground that the company was liable.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury.)

SHALES V. DAVIS.

This was an interpleader action to try the validity of
certain household goods, &o.

The plaintiff is a tailor and stationer, residing at Strat-
ford, Essex, and the defendant is a milkman. In March,
1855, a butcher, named French, residing in Whitecross-
street, brother-in-law of the plaintiff owed 701. for rent.
On the 26th of October a distress was put in, and the
goods were condemned in 791. 2s. 6d. On the 6th of
November the plaintiff purchased the goods, leaving
them in French's possession for the use of himself and
family. After that French was in want of money, and
plaintiff permitted him to sell a portion of the goods
and apply the proceeds to his own use. In August
last the defendant issued an execution against French,
who owed him money, which was met by the plaintiff's
claim.

Mr. Saxton, for the defendant, submitted that under
the recent Bill of Sales Act, the sale was a transfer of
property requiring registration within 21days, in default
of which it was void or against the execution creditor.
The learned Judge, after consulting the other judges,
stated his opinion that the registration of such sales was
not required under the aot.

The defence was that the whole was a colourable trans-
action between the parties to defeat the defendant's exe-

cation.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

',Sittings in Banco—Before the Lord Chief Baron,
Barons Bramwell, Watson, and Channel)
VASS V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY
COMPANY.

Mr. H. Hill, Q.C., moved for a rule to set aside the
verdict found for the plaintiff in this case, on the
ground that the company had issued defective rules to
their servants. The action was tried before Mr. Baron
Watson at the last assizes at Liverpool. The deceased
was in the service of the company, and at the time
of his death was employed in repairng the buffer of
an engine. At the station at which he was employed
there was a junction of the East Lancashire Railway,
and also a siding for goods trains, and on their arrival
certain signals, by the ringing of a bell, were to be given
to the pointsman. While the deceased was at work,
between the carriage and engine he was repair-
ing, a train arrived and the signals were given,
but could not be heard by the deceased, and the
consequence was that the train ran into the siding, over.
threw the carriage which had not been cleared away,
and killed the deceased.

Rule granted on the point of defective rules.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (This Day.)

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY BYWESTMINSTER A SERVANT. Elizabeth
Griffiths, servant to Mrs, Batt, 4, Belgrave-road, was
charged before Mr. Arnold with stealing a white satin
dress, a crimson velvet mantle lined with white lace, a
valuable shawl, a scarf, 5 head-dresses, and other articles
of the value of above 2001., the property of Mrs. Hudson,
the wife of Mrs. G. Hudson, railway director, who hold
apartments at the house.
It appeared from the evidence that the previous day
the prisoner sent a little girl of the name of Emily
Stillwell with a bundle which she directed her to take
to her mother, who lives at No. 17, Hiudon-place.
Prisoner stated to her that she would call for it in the
evening. She also sent another bundle by the same
child to another female. Mrs. Stillwell opened the
bundle, when, upon seeing what the contents were,
she called upon a neighbour, and asked her
what she should do. The neighbour observed,
she had no doubt but that the property was stolen.
Mrs. Stillwell immediately gave information to Mr.
Humphreys, inspector of the B division, Rochester-row,
who directed Fells, N 238, to inquire into the affair.
Fells stated that be took the prisoner into custody
yesterday afternoon at No. 4, Belgrave-road. He re-
marked to her that she was charged with stealing a
quantity of property belonging to Mrs. Hudson, and he
told her that she need not say anything unless she liked.
She then stated that she took them all out of a box
which was in the drawing-room. She observed that
Mrs. Stillwell knew nothing of the contents of the
bundle. Fells produced the property. The shawl, it
was stated, cost 1001.
Msr. . Humphreys,
who v
c) answerwas of
an advanced age
to Mr. Arnold,
wassaid
thenthat
lir. Hudson,
not able to litteD d, being rather unwell.
The prisoner was remanded for a week.

THAMES.
ATTIMPTED
a
RUBBERYERaY glrNeat
T
Michael Mitchell, alias the ioDefier," alias the "
manyCa-
H PuoilthLeir° aliases,STßEE was
to steal a gold watch from the person of George Wyatt,
foreman shipwright in the employment of Young, Son,
and Maguey, of Limehouse.
Mr. Wyatt said he was passing through a crowd as-
sembled to witness the disgraceful spectacle of two
women fighting,
d broughtaveri beforeJ ek'" Mr. Yardley, charged with attempting with
within 50 yards of the main entrance of
London Dock, in Upper East Smithfield, when the
prisoner, who stared him in the face, pressed closely
against him, and at the same time, owing to his being
stout, he felt his gold watch leaving his waistcoat
pocket and saw the prisoner drawing it upwards.
He immediately seized the prisoner and grasped his
watch, and said, gi What do you mean by stealing my
watch r The prisoner impudently said, " I have not
got your watch, and never touched it." He gave the
prisoner into the custody of a police constable, and said,
gs I shall prosecute you, for I have loft a watch before."
That was the case. A watch had been stolen from him.
The prisoner, in defence, said be was innocent and
never touched the prosecutor's watch. It was quite a
mistake on his part.
Mr. Yardley—This is a question of character. Is the
prisoner known ?
Roche, the gaoler—Yes, sir ; you once convicted bin
of felony, and be was sentenced to three months' im-
prisonment and bard labour.
The prisoner—No, it was only two months, Mr.
Roche.
Porter William Dunaway, No. 129 H, a detective
officer, said the prisoner had been convicted several
times, and tbat be was last sentenced to 6 month's im-
prisonment and hard labour for Stealing a watch. The
prisoner was a " duffer," and for many years had
attended races and lairs with thimble and pea-rigmen)
and dealt in duffing (brass) watches and chains, which
he sold for gold.
Mr. Yardley sentenced the prisoner to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for three calendar months.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
BURGLARY NY A BARRISTER'S CLEM—Joseph Cud!eh
who described himself as a barrister's clerk, residing at
No, 19, Garden-row, Loadou-road, WAS brought before